Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
74
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 13:59:09 -
[31] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:You mean to tell me that a guy needs help fighting a frigate, so his support brings something else that can't track the frigate either? Great Idea.
Battleships were forced into obsolescence after WWII because they were big and expensive and they were often sunk by smaller vessels (primarily Destroyers) and fighter-bombers that would be "out-track" their guns and deliver torpedoes and other explosives. I really think that Battleships should be things that are supported by things like they were realistically. This isn't real life. My point stands, turret battleships will be made all but helpless with this nerf vs small, fast ships at close range no matter what they do.
Did I already mention that your point does not stand? Because it does not. Maybe if EVE took more inspiration from real life it would have more diverse and tactically viable ships in fleet compositions instead of masses of whatever ship is op at the time. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16755
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 14:06:48 -
[32] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Did I already mention that your point does not stand? Because it does not. Maybe if EVE took more inspiration from real life it would have more diverse and tactically viable ships in fleet compositions instead of masses of whatever ship is op at the time.
Yet here you are arguing for 16 ships to be removed from my options for solo play. My point still stands, you would massively harm turret battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
518
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 14:17:06 -
[33] - Quote
Generally in pvp, especially solo pvp, if a blaster boat gets one webbed one is usually screwed. So in a way I agree that it needs tweaking. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
74
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 14:26:14 -
[34] - Quote
Yes I do recommend they be removed for solo play. At least within tactical perspective, but ultimately they would end up in the same state that they are now, viable for solo, but not optimally due to the current meta. Honestly, this change by itself wouldn't even affect your ships ability to solo to any extent.
The change is extremely minimalist; it would drag ships to slowing down to an extent where they are not un-traceable in any case they would still be under heavy neut pressure, scrams, and drones. Not to mention they would still have to fave the very real possibility of being struck by your guns anyway, or being forced to disengage, which would open them up to your guns anyway.
You are so caught up in the fact that your way of life MIGHT be disturbed that you are attacking the OP in your defense without considering the implications of it. Chances are with this web change that the OP suggests essentially would add up to 1 web accounting for almost 2 and seeing as you are likely to be equipping 1-2 webs anyway the objective you are seeking is still achieved with only slightly less impunity than before.
What is going on here is that you are just rigidly looking at the word "nerf" which was used for nothing more than to gain interest in the actual suggestion, and then began your defensive tirade to deny a thing which you only even contemplated for seconds. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
74
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 14:29:36 -
[35] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Generally in pvp, especially solo pvp, if a blaster boat gets one webbed one is usually screwed. So in a way I agree that it needs tweaking.
I don't like the idea of any ship at any time just being "screwed", but I don't like the idea of smalls being weak to larges or mids just because they are cheaper either. I don't want to throw large ships under the bus, but it is much easier for a BS to bring a support Caracal or Thrasher or Svipul to back it up from 1-3 frigates than it is for the 1-3 frigates to bring anti BS support. Not without escalating the fight to another scale, and in that case the solo bs is screwed anyway. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
74
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 14:35:32 -
[36] - Quote
Webs generally not a good idea from a gameplay standard, they serve to incentivize an aversion to a certain type of playstyle altogether because they exclude smaller ships of any varying class of truly participating in engagements when the larger ship class is available, because large ship classes can just force the smaller one at bay at low transversals when in enough of a group so that they are blapped, but if they get in close to try to avoid that they get webbed by all of the ships anyway and then proceedingly get blapped.
It is the literal equivalent of capital weapons being used on subcaps with impunity. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16756
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 14:54:52 -
[37] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Yes I do recommend they be removed for solo play. At least within tactical perspective, but ultimately they would end up in the same state that they are now, viable for solo, but not optimally due to the current meta. Honestly, this change by itself wouldn't even affect your ships ability to solo to any extent.
The change is extremely minimalist; it would drag ships to slowing down to an extent where they are not un-traceable in any case they would still be under heavy neut pressure, scrams, and drones. Not to mention they would still have to fave the very real possibility of being struck by your guns anyway, or being forced to disengage, which would open them up to your guns anyway.
You are so caught up in the fact that your way of life MIGHT be disturbed that you are attacking the OP in your defense without considering the implications of it. Chances are with this web change that the OP suggests essentially would add up to 1 web accounting for almost 2 and seeing as you are likely to be equipping 1-2 webs anyway the objective you are seeking is still achieved with only slightly less impunity than before.
What is going on here is that you are just rigidly looking at the word "nerf" which was used for nothing more than to gain interest in the actual suggestion, and then began your defensive tirade to deny a thing which you only even contemplated for seconds.
I only needed seconds because I know how these ships work. Any frigate that is in web range is also in scram range yet even with its MWD turned off I still need the web to get hits on it even with blasters. Nerf webs and you now have a situation where a frigate at close range is impervious to my weapons. This nerf more or less makes webs utterly pointless to fit and turret battleships unable to do anything. It is already far from easy to get hits even with a web, you do not need to nerf it any more.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
960
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 15:04:31 -
[38] - Quote
Totally curve ball here but i would like to see size to effectiveness implemented ie (e-war only)
Small hulls using web get 60% on small targets 40% on med hulls 20% on large no bueno on XL what so ever. (small pros here would be web drones being a thing when engaging more than you can chew)
Large hulls using web on large 20% med 40% small 60% XL 10%.
Same goes for point / scram
Small hull using it on small give 100% hold using it on med size hulls give 80% chance that it will hold that ship at each new cycle using it on large target give you 60% chance point / scram will hold at start of each cycle. (bring friends or hunt what you can SOLO deal with)
This way i think more ppl would undock and roam with heavier ship to go true solo than now if ship mass ie hull size play role in more profound way than currently is and deliver some deterrent (other than millon dps zillion HP and pulverizing device like titan dd )
Side note i do believe EvE promote blob ware in order of magnitude more over solo play and i don't consider it good or healthy for a game.
My 2c feel free to ignore it. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:07:21 -
[39] - Quote
[/quote]
I only needed seconds because I know how these ships work. Any frigate that is in web range is also in scram range yet even with its MWD turned off I still need the web to get hits on it even with blasters. Nerf webs and you now have a situation where a frigate at close range is impervious to my weapons. This nerf more or less makes webs utterly pointless to fit and turret battleships unable to do anything. It is already far from easy to get hits even with a web, you do not need to nerf it any more.[/quote]
I disagree, I am frequently on the other end of that spectrum, and a web on its own is enough to handle a lot of business on a frigate, from the battleship's perspective seeing as the battleship is extremely likely to have neuts AND drones. In more cases than not is the neuts plus the scram and the singular web that make the kill on the frigate from the battleship.
You only needed seconds because you read the title, not the OP. You may know how those ships work, but I know exactly how this situation plays out, whichever way you cut it, the frigate is at a HUGE disadvantage, but that doesn't matter, but the point is that this change, under the stipulations that the battleship is engaging the frigate the result of the webs effect is almost the same the single web that you have on the battleship would be enough to slow an af down to slightly less than half. With this it would simply be at its base speed if it was using an afterburner which is at actually a greater loss than the webs we have currently; however, it would remove the agility penalties that effect the frigate so that it can actually maneuver still and not just be a brick in space with absolutely no relative tank whatsoever.
Seriously, the entire point of the ship class is so that it maneuver under the guns of larger vessels and fight that way. That is literally how the ship is supposed to work, but currently it doesn't work that way unless you gimp the fit and/or bring skirmish links, or just avoid the situation altogether by bringing and interceptor and/or garmur to mess with your life the exact same way, and that is exactly what happens now, there is so much anti-tackle, anti-brawl equipment available, that people just forgo brawling in that respect altogether. Your battleship should be worthless against a frigate that is underneath your guns, that is the point of the entire class, but this change the OP suggests doesn't even go that far, and you still don't get that.
Tell me what is worse, having a frigate underneath your guns that you can not hit with your main weapons but still have scram/web/neuts active on or, a kitey Garmur/Interceptor pointing you from 30-40k away that you can not interact with at all other than when he ninja dives you for a scram to stop your mjd. That is exactly what the meta is like right now. At least the brawler frigate has to come into range and during that window you have a chance to deal massive damage, and cripple it before it even gets into scram range. Current meta doesn't call for that though, you know why? Because it is hardly possible, and why do it when I can easy mode kite you? You know why the current meta is kite oriented? Because brawling harshly forces commitment. Kiting does not. Brawling is a near death trap against a larger target because scrams/webs/neuts/drones. Kiting doesn't have to deal with three of those things and only scarcely is bothered by the fourth.
When you are up against a larger ship, he basically has a triad of modules that very well can make impossible to enter commitment range, against him. Kiting deals with none of that, maybe if brawling wasn't such a terrible option for engaging a large majority of targets like that, the meta wouldn't be what it is today, but I guess you like having an Orthrus kite your battleship to death; it is more dignified right? |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:08:18 -
[40] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote:Totally curve ball here but i would like to see size to effectiveness implemented ie (e-war only)
Small hulls using web get 60% on small targets 40% on med hulls 20% on large no bueno on XL what so ever. (small pros here would be web drones being a thing when engaging more than you can chew)
Large hulls using web on large 20% med 40% small 60% XL 10%.
Same goes for point / scram
Small hull using it on small give 100% hold using it on med size hulls give 80% chance that it will hold that ship at each new cycle using it on large target give you 60% chance point / scram will hold at start of each cycle. (bring friends or hunt what you can SOLO deal with)
This way i think more ppl would undock and roam with heavier ship to go true solo than now if ship mass ie hull size play role in more profound way than currently is and deliver some deterrent (other than millon dps zillion HP and pulverizing device like titan dd )
Side note i do believe EvE promote blob ware in order of magnitude more over solo play and i don't consider it good or healthy for a game.
My 2c feel free to ignore it.
Anything at this point is better than bittervet ramble.
|
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16757
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:10:42 -
[41] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
I disagree, I am frequently on the other end of that spectrum, and a web on its own is enough to handle a lot of business on a frigate, from the battleship's perspective seeing as the battleship is extremely likely to have neuts AND drones. In more cases than not is the neuts plus the scram and the singular web that make the kill on the frigate from the battleship.
You only needed seconds because you read the title, not the OP. You may know how those ships work, but I know exactly how this situation plays out, whichever way you cut it, the frigate is at a HUGE disadvantage, but that doesn't matter, but the point is that this change, under the stipulations that the battleship is engaging the frigate the result of the webs effect is almost the same the single web that you have on the battleship would be enough to slow an af down to slightly less than half. With this it would simply be at its base speed if it was using an afterburner which is at actually a greater loss than the webs we have currently; however, it would remove the agility penalties that effect the frigate so that it can actually maneuver still and not just be a brick in space with absolutely no relative tank whatsoever.
Seriously, the entire point of the ship class is so that it maneuver under the guns of larger vessels and fight that way. That is literally how the ship is supposed to work, but currently it doesn't work that way unless you gimp the fit and/or bring skirmish links, or just avoid the situation altogether by bringing and interceptor and/or garmur to mess with your life the exact same way, and that is exactly what happens now, there is so much anti-tackle, anti-brawl equipment available, that people just forgo brawling in that respect altogether. Your battleship should be worthless against a frigate that is underneath your guns, that is the point of the entire class, but this change the OP suggests doesn't even go that far, and you still don't get that.
Tell me what is worse, having a frigate underneath your guns that you can not hit with your main weapons but still have scram/web/neuts active on or, a kitey Garmur/Interceptor pointing you from 30-40k away that you can not interact with at all other than when he ninja dives you for a scram to stop your mjd. That is exactly what the meta is like right now. At least the brawler frigate has to come into range and during that window you have a chance to deal massive damage, and cripple it before it even gets into scram range. Current meta doesn't call for that though, you know why? Because it is hardly possible, and why do it when I can easy mode kite you? You know why the current meta is kite oriented? Because brawling harshly forces commitment. Kiting does not. Brawling is a near death trap against a larger target because scrams/webs/neuts/drones. Kiting doesn't have to deal with three of those things and only scarcely is bothered by the fourth.
When you are up against a larger ship, he basically has a triad of modules that very well can make impossible to enter commitment range, against him. Kiting deals with none of that, maybe if brawling wasn't such a terrible option for engaging a large majority of targets like that, the meta wouldn't be what it is today, but I guess you like having an Orthrus kite your battleship to death; it is more dignified right?
Well we now know you have never flown a battleship now.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:12:05 -
[42] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:90% webs are limited to exclusive ships.
As long as there is no end to bumping, I am against any changes to webs because freighters do not have prop mods and require webs.
I was referring to pre Web nerf webs. btw |

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1214
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:16:36 -
[43] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Bring support.
So now I cant solo in the ships I enjoy and have enjoyed for the last decade?
perhaps think of it another way, why would small ships be able too use a super powerful tool? maybe webs could be sized :-
small - 35% medium - 45% battleship - 55%
maybe webs could have higher fitting and cap consumption scaling with that strength - looks at officer webs massive pg requirement, along with falloff added, and range could be scaled too.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1214
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:19:32 -
[44] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
I disagree, I am frequently on the other end of that spectrum, and a web on its own is enough to handle a lot of business on a frigate, from the battleship's perspective seeing as the battleship is extremely likely to have neuts AND drones. In more cases than not is the neuts plus the scram and the singular web that make the kill on the frigate from the battleship.
You only needed seconds because you read the title, not the OP. You may know how those ships work, but I know exactly how this situation plays out, whichever way you cut it, the frigate is at a HUGE disadvantage, but that doesn't matter, but the point is that this change, under the stipulations that the battleship is engaging the frigate the result of the webs effect is almost the same the single web that you have on the battleship would be enough to slow an af down to slightly less than half. With this it would simply be at its base speed if it was using an afterburner which is at actually a greater loss than the webs we have currently; however, it would remove the agility penalties that effect the frigate so that it can actually maneuver still and not just be a brick in space with absolutely no relative tank whatsoever.
Seriously, the entire point of the ship class is so that it maneuver under the guns of larger vessels and fight that way. That is literally how the ship is supposed to work, but currently it doesn't work that way unless you gimp the fit and/or bring skirmish links, or just avoid the situation altogether by bringing and interceptor and/or garmur to mess with your life the exact same way, and that is exactly what happens now, there is so much anti-tackle, anti-brawl equipment available, that people just forgo brawling in that respect altogether. Your battleship should be worthless against a frigate that is underneath your guns, that is the point of the entire class, but this change the OP suggests doesn't even go that far, and you still don't get that.
Tell me what is worse, having a frigate underneath your guns that you can not hit with your main weapons but still have scram/web/neuts active on or, a kitey Garmur/Interceptor pointing you from 30-40k away that you can not interact with at all other than when he ninja dives you for a scram to stop your mjd. That is exactly what the meta is like right now. At least the brawler frigate has to come into range and during that window you have a chance to deal massive damage, and cripple it before it even gets into scram range. Current meta doesn't call for that though, you know why? Because it is hardly possible, and why do it when I can easy mode kite you? You know why the current meta is kite oriented? Because brawling harshly forces commitment. Kiting does not. Brawling is a near death trap against a larger target because scrams/webs/neuts/drones. Kiting doesn't have to deal with three of those things and only scarcely is bothered by the fourth.
When you are up against a larger ship, he basically has a triad of modules that very well can make impossible to enter commitment range, against him. Kiting deals with none of that, maybe if brawling wasn't such a terrible option for engaging a large majority of targets like that, the meta wouldn't be what it is today, but I guess you like having an Orthrus kite your battleship to death; it is more dignified right?
Well we now know you have never flown a battleship now.
that makes me wonder if making neuts have tracking elements might be a better way of reducing their effectiveness too encourage frigs being able too brawl under big guns..
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:19:41 -
[45] - Quote
It is very obvious that you have never tried engaging a triple rep hyperion in a vengeance assault frigate so you could tackle him for your fleet. I have, i managed to hold him for about 60 seconds til my tank ran out and died. He then proceeded to mjd away. So I refit to an interceptor and literally did the same thing and held him infinitely easily. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:20:38 -
[46] - Quote
I am actually convinced that you are trolling now. No human being can literally be that ignorant. I am sorry, I actually can not take you seriously. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:21:47 -
[47] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Bring support.
So now I cant solo in the ships I enjoy and have enjoyed for the last decade? perhaps think of it another way, why would small ships be able too use a super powerful tool? maybe webs could be sized :- small - 35% medium - 45% battleship - 55% maybe webs could have higher fitting and cap consumption scaling with that strength - looks at officer webs massive pg requirement, along with falloff added, and range could be scaled too.
I actually suggested something like this before and was hackled about it. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16760
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:22:01 -
[48] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:It is very obvious that you have never tried engaging a triple rep hyperion in a vengeance assault frigate so you could tackle him for your fleet. I have, i managed to hold him for about 60 seconds til my tank ran out and died. He then proceeded to mjd away. So I refit to an interceptor and literally did the same thing and held him infinitely easily.
I fly a megathron, a ship with a built in tracking bonus and I can tell you, a frigate doing 350m/s at close range will not be hit using large turrets without a web.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16760
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:23:13 -
[49] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
Bring support.
So now I cant solo in the ships I enjoy and have enjoyed for the last decade? perhaps think of it another way, why would small ships be able too use a super powerful tool? maybe webs could be sized :- small - 35% medium - 45% battleship - 55% maybe webs could have higher fitting and cap consumption scaling with that strength - looks at officer webs massive pg requirement, along with falloff added, and range could be scaled too.
Leads to other issues such as super fast larger ships out running frigates even if webbed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:23:38 -
[50] - Quote
Yea, duh, obviously. I know this. Please, are you six? Are you not understanding things? Can you read? Are you bothering to read the essay long responses I attempt to educate you on? No? Figures. |
|

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16760
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:26:11 -
[51] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Yea, duh, obviously. I know this. Please, are you six? Are you not understanding things? Can you read? Are you bothering to read the essay long responses I attempt to educate you on? No? Figures.
I am, hence why I am calling you out on your damaging nerfs.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:27:10 -
[52] - Quote
Btw, don't you just primarily fly catalysts and gank freighters? Have you actually ever tried to set up the fight for and fc a fleet of frigates trying to engage anything larger than them? |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16760
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:35:14 -
[53] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Btw, don't you just primarily fly catalysts and gank freighters? Have you actually ever tried to set up the fight for and fc a fleet of frigates trying to engage anything larger than them?
I have FC'd harpy fleets while flying a megathron. I literally have owned battleships with more combat experience than you have.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:35:38 -
[54] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Yea, duh, obviously. I know this. Please, are you six? Are you not understanding things? Can you read? Are you bothering to read the essay long responses I attempt to educate you on? No? Figures. I am, hence why I am calling you out on your damaging nerfs.
No, no. You are not. I honestly don't believe you actually ever flown a solo battleship. I don't believe you have any idea of what you are talking about any more. You may call that damaging because it hurts that play style, but it seriously improves the amount of viable play styles available in the game. Period. There are a diverse series of fleet engagements and situations that people are averted from engaging in because of how commitment ranges work.
I am in exodussss, these sort of situations are my lifeeee. Why can't you understand that I am trying to save you from the cancer that is my alliance. Your Megathron is much more vulnerable to kitey fleets than it is brawling frigates. Your argument doesn't make any sense, you are giving me a headache. |

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:44:46 -
[55] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Btw, don't you just primarily fly catalysts and gank freighters? Have you actually ever tried to set up the fight for and fc a fleet of frigates trying to engage anything larger than them? I have FC'd harpy fleets while flying a megathron. I literally have owned battleships with more combat experience than you have.
FCing 100km Rail Harpy Fleets is exactly what I am talking about. That doctrine is 1000 times more dangerous and cancerous.
I have way more experience than you do, by a long shot.
I literally fly 6 man fleets against hordes of upclassed, linked, fleets regularly. Not to mention my participation in enough alliance tournament skirmishing to be totally aware of how both symmetrical and asymmetrical combat functions.
I have over 1000 solo kills and I have literally engaged every non-super ship class in game at least once. An afternoons worth of flying with me is worth weeks of your "experience". |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16760
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:48:49 -
[56] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:baltec1 wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Btw, don't you just primarily fly catalysts and gank freighters? Have you actually ever tried to set up the fight for and fc a fleet of frigates trying to engage anything larger than them? I have FC'd harpy fleets while flying a megathron. I literally have owned battleships with more combat experience than you have. FCing 100km Rail Harpy Fleets is exactly what I am talking about. That doctrine is 1000 times more dangerous and cancerous. I have way more experience than you do, by a long shot. I literally fly 6 man fleets against hordes of upclassed, linked, fleets regularly. Not to mention my participation in enough alliance tournament skirmishing to be totally aware of how both symmetrical and asymmetrical combat functions. I have over 1000 solo kills and I have literally engaged every non-super ship class in game at least once. An afternoons worth of flying with me is worth weeks of your "experience".
You are seriously going to try to flap your e-peen at me?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
75
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:50:51 -
[57] - Quote
You're right. I am too angry. I need to stop. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16760
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 16:59:14 -
[58] - Quote
I'm not here trying to troll you, I seriously have more experience than you do with flying battleships simply because I have flown them almost exclusively for six years in situations that beggar belief. I have flown them from one end of eve to the other, from solo to 4000 man fleet brawls in every large war in the last six years. I am likely the most experienced megathron pilot you are going to meet, believe me when I say this nerf will harm battleship pilots.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|

NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
685
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 17:05:36 -
[59] - Quote
I can't support this idea in defence of the already defenseless battleships that are fighting smaller ships. Battleships does already have hard enough times to have a chance against smaller targets.
I'm on the same side here as batlec where i have years in experience in flying a Megathron and Vindicator. The Vindicator had it pretty easy with the 99% web bonus it had some years ago. Just taking it from 99% to 90% was a HUUUUUUUGE difference when the webs got nerfed some years ago.
And the Megathron with it's tracking bonus or specially other battleships that doesn't have a tracking bonus already have it extremely hard to hit cruisers and smaller ships. They at least have a slightluy chance of winning against smaller ships as it is now.
With your idea, it's pretty much game over the second you see a frig in your battleship on a low sec gate or whatever. Therefor i can't support it.
Webs are fine as they are now. And yes, i'm telling you this with years of experience. I have been playing EVE Online since early 2004.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
1485
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 19:54:49 -
[60] - Quote
Web's need buffs, not nerfs.
The Tears Must Flow
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |