| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
768
   |
Posted - 2015.12.06 23:34:30 -
[211] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Burtakus wrote:I still remember when I was a noon and when I was getting better without links and when I was finally decent without links.
The one thing that kept me in the game was joining a player Corp in FW. I am a 20p8 player that took a 4 year break because I never got engaged with the player base beyond getting dunked because I had no clue what I was doing.
I will readily admit that the SP gap between new and older payers can be and is a big turn off. There is a reason my newer alt does not do much beyond probe and train skills. With that being said, the SP gap is not in my opinion the biggest gap. The biggest gap is the skill aspect in the pilot themselves. There is a steep learning curve to transitioning from scrub level noob to decent pilot. The faster you progress that the easier and more enjoyable the game becomes. The only way to accelerate that learning curve is to get engaged with the player base and go fly with reckless abandon. No amount of off grid vs on grid vs with vs without links will change that ever.
The game needs a player driven solution to attract and retain newer players while they progress the learning curve. Until that improves nothing will change except the gap between new and old players. The SP gap was less of a turn off than finding out I needed to buy a second account to be competitive. The SP gap is a myth. If you train a ship to mastery 5, and you are facing an opponent with similar ship, then you are both on an equal footing barring how you fit, how you fly, drugs, implants, and possible OBG. The OBG can be mitigated by making sure there are none on dscan.
It takes several months to reach an acceptable skill level for a single frigate, assuming this "new player" has a perfectly focused skill plan and a "friend" feeding him ISK. I have been playing for two years now and I still don't have every frigate relevant skill maxed because, SHOCKER, as a first time player on my first character there were/are other things I need to train in order to participate more fully in the game.
Bittervets with multiple high SP accounts seem to forget what it was like to start with nothing. Especially in a 10 year old game against people who've been training multiple characters for the duration.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
768
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 23:50:10 -
[212] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Demerius Xenocratus wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:Yes, CCP say your possible solution to having links far away on a huge grid by explaining that they will most likely work inside a small AOE. RIP skirmish gangs (apart from with t2 dessy pending details)
Not to mention that trying to have on-grid-boosts away from fleet not only makes a mockery of the whole concept for these changes but it will simply be too vulnerable to death squads of 3rd parties who can simply harass boosters 5000km away from he fight.
All the proposed changes and new ships have the potential to be an utter mess when combined together in anything but small scale fights. You argue for a deeper strategy, but i would suggest that what you will get is unpredictable uncertainty instead. Skirmish gangs don't require links unless you're terrible. This highligts your bias. It entirely depends on what you are fighting. Nano engagement envelope shrinks quite significantly without links so a blanket statement like this shows you have no interest in a conersation. And a 30% boost is god mode? How can you prove your own notion incorrect in a single paragraph and not notice? And sure, if my friend just needs to fly alone to resolve one of the main (but purile) argument, that can be arranged lol.
As I said, when your friend flies alone while you're sleeping I'll take note.
A 30% boost to most of the critical stats on your ship is pretty close to god mode, yes. It's like you think I don't actually live in the FW zone and see this **** on a daily basis. Nano kiting should require skill. It should not be a case of "I have links they don't" as you engage and tackle from 60k doing 11k in a frigate or 6k in a cruiser. You shouldn't be able to stay on field against everything. Paying a second sub should not be the turning point between having to exercise skill and discretion in target selection and piloting, and just being able to remain ongrid and permanently harass the enemy because they don't have links. It is absolutely nuts that CCP let it get to the point where the possession of links was the deciding factor in a major portion of PvP encounters and I am grateful that they are finally doing something about it.
If you cannot kite with a 54k point / 60k engagement range in a frigate doing 7k m/s cold, perhaps you should take up ice mining in highsec. You are not entitled to be a solo god because you pay CCP more money than someone else.
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1623
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 00:04:31 -
[213] - Quote
How do you know if im sleeping? That seems an awfully intrusive standard to base game balance of a game on.
Any proviso in a discussion about game balance that has 'Your friend must play while you are sleeping' in it, is already so convoluted and unwieldy as to be hilariously broken.
Personally, it doesnt matter to me if someone has alts. I tend to not fixate on individual players game choices. I just see the pixels in space and deal with them the best i can.
And a 30% boost is actually just a 30% boost. God mode is something much different. If you want to use extreme terms to express how upset boosts make you then feel free. But it doesnt help your case.
Boosts are very powerful if used correctly. They can also be, meaningless when used with no thought. They can also be expensive losses if used carelessly or without attention.
Luckily, i have a friend who flies off grid links for me so some of your major arguments are mute in my case. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome
1508
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 00:34:55 -
[214] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Wow, what a thread. OGB are a horribly abused mechanic, however moving them on-grid is not a fix. All this will do is encourage the larger side in fleet fights and raise the bar to fighting to "if I cannot alpha a linked, boosted, CS off the field, I cannot fight". If one side doesn't meet this criteria, there will be no fights because this means the side that can alpha a CS (the more powerful side) gets to use links while the other side does not. This tips the balance of power even more towards the larger fleet.
What we have today is FAR better as the barrier to entry to get a cloaky T3 booster is fairly low. If CCP doesn't like the way links work, they should just flat out delete them from the game. Moving them on-grid with no other changes is a knee-jerk reaction that is actually worse than what we have now.
^^
This is spot on.
https://soundcloud.com/ibanezlaney
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
768
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 04:20:40 -
[215] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:How do you know if im sleeping? That seems an awfully intrusive standard to balance a game with.
Any proviso in a discussion about game balance that has 'Your friend must play while you are sleeping' in it, is already so convoluted and unwieldy as to be hilariously broken.
Personally, it doesnt matter to me if someone has alts. I tend to not fixate on individual players game choices. I just see the pixels in space and deal with them the best i can.
And a 30% boost is actually just a 30% boost. God mode is something much different. If you want to use extreme rhetoric to inflate the problem and express how upset boosts make you, then feel free. But it doesnt help your case.
Boosts are very powerful if used correctly. They can also be meaningless when used with no thought. They can also be expensive losses if used carelessly or without attention.
Luckily, i have a friend who flies off grid links for me so some of your major arguments are mute in my case.
Why do you keep repeating something we all know is untrue? If it was actually another human being controlling your links I would not have a problem with it. But we all know that is not the case. It's a self-evident fact that OGB functions are performed by semi-AFK alts.
Anything in the game can be ineffective if used improperly. For discussing matters of balance and risk/reward we prefer to look at how a mechanic impacts gameplay when utilized in conjunction with an above-room-temperature IQ.
|
Markus Lionum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:03:50 -
[216] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Luckily, i have a friend who flies off grid links for me so some of your major arguments are mute in my case.
Bullshit lol |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:15:14 -
[217] - Quote
Prove me wrong. Seems like a large part of the anti-ogb argument revolves around paranoia and distrust :p |
Markus Lionum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:32:13 -
[218] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Prove me wrong. Seems like a large part of the anti-ogb argument revolves around paranoia and distrust :p
yeah I got it you were trolling all along, the tears are still salty and well preserved tho |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:33:53 -
[219] - Quote
Pointing out the absurdity in an argument isnt actually trolling. |
Markus Lionum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:40:20 -
[220] - Quote
500mn officer t3 with 3xlinks will be possible for under 1,5b I dont see the big problem about links.
What you are complaining about are specific details, crashing plexes with your t1 faction/pirate frigate wich is ghei since its frigate pvp, but calling it ghei its just my oppinion and maybe another 90% of people involved in that kind of pvp |
|
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 05:46:54 -
[221] - Quote
And i think flying around in anti frigate faction cruisers complaining about getting blobbed by frigates all day is lame.
In faction war you dont always get the choice where you engage war targets or what they are flying. You also dont get the choice to always enter a plex first.
See a gang in a plex and you dont have an evenly capable gang? Well, write it off, no combat for either side. You enter a different plex and they dont fancy risking a brawl at the warp in? Thats 2 plexes with no combat.
This happens anyway. But boosts certainly offer different options to deal with this common scenario. |
Markus Lionum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 06:08:39 -
[222] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
See a gang in a plex and you dont have an evenly capable gang? Well, write it off, no combat for either side. You enter a different plex and they dont fancy risking a brawl at the warp in? Thats 2 plexes with no combat.
If you think links on grid will translate into less fights you are way off, on the contrary
its not the perfect change, imo perfect would be limiting warfare module on every ship at max 1 along with putting them on grid with increasing boost % depending on the hullor taking them out the game for good
this announced change forces linkers to be more tactical with the fit and possitioning, putting (a little) more risk than before on their boat, while totally screwing over the honest hard working l33t plex crashing frigate pilots. Also similar to other games it gives the advantage of those on the higher ground over those trying to capture the hill - wich makes total sense |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 06:23:54 -
[223] - Quote
So you reject my points with baseless assertions then back up my points with a reference to high ground advantage?
Most people who use boosts already have extremely tactical fits, the changes will just reduce engagement envelopes for a great number of people. Suggesting that it will not have a cooling effect on PVP when the effect is narrower envelopes is quite obtuse.
Gangs that dont have boosts will still not have boosts, but gangs generally engage smaller numbers regardless. Im just pointing out those people willing to engage gangs in smaller numbers will thin out a little.
Finally, seems you are angry about plex crashing frigates, if you are happy that this change will be a fix to that edge case while any other benefit is subjective or baseless then i have to question if your perspective is of any value at all and not just bitterness? |
Markus Lionum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 06:32:26 -
[224] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:So you reject my points with baseless assertions then back up my points with a reference to high ground advantage?
Most people who use boosts already have extremely tactical fits, the changes will just reduce engagement envelopes for a great number of people. Suggesting that it will not have a cooling effect on PVP when the effect is narrower envelopes is quite obtuse.
Gangs that dont have boosts will still not have boosts, but gangs generally engage smaller numbers regardless. Im just pointing out those people willing to engage gangs in smaller numbers will thin out a little.
Finally, seems you are angry about plex crashing frigates, if you are happy that this change will be a fix to that edge case while any other benefit is subjective or baseless then i have to question if your perspective is of any value at all and not just bitterness?
its not that im specifically angry about frigates crashing plexes, but you are the only zealot here defending links as they are and your reason is purely because it will affect your frigate plex crashing. anything else you mention is bullshit.
Then you use ambigous and abstract wording to dilute that bs
And you bet im bitter - I've been bitter about links for years |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 07:18:58 -
[225] - Quote
Markus Lionum wrote:its not that im specifically angry about frigates crashing plexes, but you are the only zealot here defending links as they are and your reason is purely because it will affect your frigate plex crashing.
It will also effect;
-Small/medium gangs fighting alpha fleets and/or out numbered.
-Competent kite fleets being outside recon web influence making them quite immune to armour brawlers.
-Get past 30 people per side and the subcap logi game is pretty much over without links on many hulls.
-Flying logistics with extended cycle times and reduced reps. Without links armour logi will just melt to surprisingly small gangs and their reps will be surprisingly ineffective specially on t1 hulls. Shield logi is already flimsy in many cases, no links will make them iffy at the best of times.
-System pushes where the use of links allows otherwise weak doctrines to shine assuming skilled use.
-And just about every other facet of organised small/med/large gang pvp.
All of which i participate in on a regular basis which the exception of large scale which thankfully is a rarity.
Now, is this all a bad thing? i dont know. I would just suggest that the people who are playing the game at the moment are mostly satisfied with how the game plays exemplified by them playing. With the exception of a few sperglords on these forums who hardly ever pvp anyway. In order to satisfy these sperglords you are inflicting a substantial change in gameplay on many people who actually do pvp.
Seems a bit risky to me.
You might say this will result in much more things dying. I would pose that it will result in more blobbing up, perhaps more logi and people being far more selective in the fights they take, and for good reason. |
Arla Sarain
712
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 12:43:45 -
[226] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:people being far more selective in the fights they take, and for good reason.
With countless people -orange and -red on peoples' lists for the reasons this entire thread is based on, you wouldn't think that's the bloody point? |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 16:28:28 -
[227] - Quote
You clearly dont know what 'ultimatum' means.
Also, my point throughout this thread is that this will effect all other areas of pvp. You prove my point yet again by citing examples of how links are broken in 1v1 to justify changing the experience and capabilities of fleet players on ever scale everywhere else in EVE.
Now, one more time in case you missed it again. Im not suggesting that this is objectively bad for the game. Im saying that it is a risk to nerf fleets and in particular smaller fleets vs larger fleets since that is the content that the silent majority enjoys. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
914
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 16:44:20 -
[228] - Quote
Links coming on grid doesn't bother me so much. Since grid will be 7800km. Just set booster as a far away as possible with multiple grid bounces.
Command Destroyers and T2 logi frigates are going to make Small plexes a real pain.
If links are brought on grid, that means they will not be available in novice plexes; which means fights for those plexes will be either a battle of attrition, or a lot of blue-balling.
Oh, and with remote reppers getting falloff, the logi game is going to change significantly. |
Lucy Callagan
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
29
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 17:19:12 -
[229] - Quote
Markus Lionum wrote: but you are the only zealot here defending links
Oh he's not the only one, others are just to busy doing actual pvp or other stuff to be forum warrioring as efficiently as Crosi does.
Frugu.net
|
Xplecit
McKee Exports
The Methodical Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 19:25:10 -
[230] - Quote
I honestly dont use link but i started training on my alt like 4month ago still cant use T2 link almost on skirmish, but can use the T3 shield booster and armor (legion/tengu). And this training is 1/6 of my total SP on my alt! Like no refound for a preson that started training leadership skills recently GG go next! - No remap of SP, a simple thing that would resolve all of this and so many other problems!
I believe command ships can have links and decent tank. But T3 CAN'T they simply can't!! I will answer your question why links are off-grind if you explain me how you want a T3 link to be in a fighting battle...
T3 cruiser link normally are unscanable have no tank, not even a damage control, for a reason, because they arent supposed to be a part of the real fight.
And people that use links for PVE? WH, incursion...
Did CCP just listen to FW carry babys... this remind me of WoW when a part of the comunity started whining did the change didnt think about it and **** it up even more!
Again i dont use Links i have fight agains links in defense of my alliance home system, and small ganks with links. Not being a fan of it doesn't mean i have to cry a river to CCP... Deal with.
I honestly think a SP REMAP(1 per year). is way WAY more important them all this link ****! A "leveling system" that doesnt involve skill knowledge, not even really playing the game .. just waiting for the clock "tic tac" For me it has logic if you training large projectile at lest fire the weapon, or if fire you learn faster.. This is the only game i know with a "training/leveling" whatever you want to call it that the only requirement is for you to pay! And i played UO-SWG and recent mmo even try out eve in the first 1-2 years when it come out.
So many **** up things in eve specially the training of the caracter that i CAN'T change the skill points! 2xT3 + link training GG ccp Go next!
|
|
|
Jhousetlin Zamayid
Attitude Adjustment Incorporated
31
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 20:32:14 -
[231] - Quote
Lotta debate in this thread.
Here is my opinion regarding ECM and OGB:
If the only solution is to "bring your own", then there's probably a balance problem. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 22:10:45 -
[232] - Quote
If your only solution is to bring your own, then you are ignoring a few other solutions. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
915
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 22:11:21 -
[233] - Quote
Jhousetlin Zamayid wrote:Lotta debate in this thread.
Here is my opinion regarding ECM and OGB:
If the only solution is to "bring your own", then there's probably a balance problem.
It's not a balance problem. Balance is between 2 people. 1 versus 1. OGBs are 2 versus 1. Unfortunately, the kill report doesn't show that accurately. |
Markus Lionum
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 22:26:59 -
[234] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Jhousetlin Zamayid wrote:Lotta debate in this thread.
Here is my opinion regarding ECM and OGB:
If the only solution is to "bring your own", then there's probably a balance problem. It's not a balance problem. Balance is between 2 people. 1 versus 1. OGBs are 2 versus 1. Unfortunately, the kill report doesn't show that accurately.
Problem really is in how little input, focus and risk running links involves - call it balance or something else |
Pestilen Ratte
Artimus Ratte
41
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 22:57:32 -
[235] - Quote
It is possibly worth stepping back and wondering how CCP see this issue.
I'm gonna speculate, because so far CCP are as silent as the grave on this thread.
It seems to me that CCP has two predominant cultures of strength: on one side you have the financial folks who are (reasonably) concerned for the bottom line, and who see any short term threat to subscriber income as death on a stick. These folks know that there are a lot of lone wolf players who have alts and who reasonably want value for money for their double subscription fees.
One the other side, you have the "visionaries" who think they are very big deals because they know moderately influential people in very large player corps. These people like to make economic arguments, but it always boils down to the same thing: we need to protect and pander to the old time big deals in the mega corps, because they ARE Eve. They built it, they pay huge subscriptions for large numbers of folks, etc etc.
Now, there are also the third group, who are the artists and engineers who just get on do their freaking jobs and work for a living, but nobody listens to them so we can also ignore them for the moment.
So, the big problem here is that both the dominant cultures in the CCP world pander to established income streams. Neither side is focused on new player retention, or building new market shares in new demographics. One side want to chase the lone wolf side of the game, the other want to chase the mega corp demographic.
For all we know, the world of interweb space ship players is basically divided into these two camps. CCP have the data, not me. So maybe it is possible that 99% of Eve players are lone wolf types who prefer gimps to friends, or they are office workers who play Eve because their meglomaniac boss uses company funds to subcribe their whole office into a mega corp in a mega alliance with other space lord bosses.
Let's not be naive. A lot of large corps are office based. A lot of revenue to CCP surely comes from office bosses who write subscriptions off as a cost of running the office. There is nothing wrong with that, except that it means that a lot of players in these corps are probably more likely to act like goons than RPG enthusiasts. Hello Nullsec!
If it is true that CCP is focused on the lone wolf (lone wolf sounds a lot better than "gimp pimp") and the office drone demographic, this would explain a lot about the game.
It would explain off grid boosters. It would explain hilariously OP ships. It would explain the neglect of small gang PVP in favour of citadels and Titans that NOBODY except the office bosses ever fly.
And that is a strategic decision that CCP is best placed to make. They know who plays the game, they know where the money comes from.
However, if it is true that CCP aspires to be greater than it already is, if it is true that CCP wants to retain the new players who are not gimp pimps or office drones, then CCP needs to stop focusing on mechanics that destroy small gang player experience, and they need to start building a culture within their own oprganization that speaks for the demographic they wish to engage in the market place.
Since we are building a lexicon here, let's call them "normal, eager roleplayers with friends", or NERFS.
We have the gimp pimps. We have the office lords and their drones.
What about the NERFS?
Who is going to speak for the NERFS?
Because we are the future.
I hope. I mean, jesus christ. Gimp pimps and office drones?
I need to lie down again. |
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
772
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 00:05:42 -
[236] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:If your only solution is to bring your own, then you are ignoring a few other solutions.
The other "counters" to links require greater input and skill on the part of the player. They aren't afk-able, and actually killing the links ship requires more than 1 additional account. So yes, the most efficient solution by far is to bring your own, rather than dedicating multiple players/accounts towards hunting them which usually just results in the link abuser running away.
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1624
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 03:02:23 -
[237] - Quote
If boosting is as passive as you say, all you have to do is 60 seconds of probing, and get a decent kill. Or 15 seconds of warping to a gate with a tornado.
Ironically, if boosts are not afk they can be easier to deal with. SImply ejecting a set of 8 combats can be enough to make boosters think twice about what they are doing.
Anyway, im not sure where in the rules that it states that rewards should be balanced by stats AND effort. That throws a spanner in so many aspects of the game.
Your argument suggests that you are simply defeated before you even start. Everythng is too unfair, or too much effort lol. |
Xplecit
McKee Exports
The Methodical Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 07:20:03 -
[238] - Quote
I wonder why noone complains about the racials bonus of titans.. And only small pvp group and FW stuff!
Because old players dont whine like this new players that do FW and want to solo PVP. Simple has that! Yeah i dont like link either.. but deal with it!
Maybe giving link only to T2 cruiser or higher would be the best idea. That way no links for a 50mil ship being boosted by a 1b ship!
And the logic of bringing a T3 link on grid, with no weapons no tank just link! Really amazes me by the negative...
Like you forcing a non-combat ship to the grid, hopping for a juice kill mail! Say it all! Same skill level of ganking mining bardes and indis! You ask for a fair fight... What is fair in fighting a ship with no guns no tank!
Just remove link for small size hauls. And from T1 medium hauls! For me it's perfectly clear that CCP didn't think of the role of a T3 boosting. Most of big fleet compus that use link use it already on grid with command ships! If they used off-grid link im 99% sure CCP wouldn't do a think because thoose are the real dollars! Not small FW crying babies!
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
773
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 08:32:47 -
[239] - Quote
Xplecit wrote:I wonder why noone complains about the racials bonus of titans.. And only small pvp group and FW stuff!
Because old players dont whine like this new players that do FW and want to solo PVP. Simple has that! Yeah i dont like link either.. but deal with it!
Maybe giving link only to T2 cruiser or higher would be the best idea. That way no links for a 50mil ship being boosted by a 1b ship!
And the logic of bringing a T3 link on grid, with no weapons no tank just link! Really amazes me by the negative...
Like you forcing a non-combat ship to the grid, hopping for a juice kill mail! Say it all! Same skill level of ganking mining bardes and indis! You ask for a fair fight... What is fair in fighting a ship with no guns no tank!
Just remove link for small size hauls. And from T1 medium hauls! For me it's perfectly clear that CCP didn't think of the role of a T3 boosting. Most of big fleet compus that use link use it already on grid with command ships! If they used off-grid link im 99% sure CCP wouldn't do a think because thoose are the real dollars! Not small FW crying babies!
Not to meantion that most people that pvp in low sec, and do FW don't pvp in Null because "they dont like bubbles"... all said!
You know why I PvP in lowsec instead of null?
I get to press F1 in both, but in low I get to press other buttons too.
|
Xplecit
McKee Exports
The Methodical Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 09:47:41 -
[240] - Quote
Most time i run logy so have more them the F1 to play arround. But i'm geting what you saying...
But why every dam "balance" = a NERF. Ishtars, drone are good exemples. Cap changes incoming in spring not a "re-balance" JUST A PURE SIMPLE NERF!
Problem aren't the off-grid booster. Problem is when you use a +1b ship to boost a T1 ship, making stronger them pirates ships or T2 ships,or a already OP tactical destroyer that becomes a bit absurd with links!
This is the problem not off-grid links!
How the only way CCP see in "re-balance" is nerfing link the the ground specially the T3 cruiser forcing them to be on grid. Not thinking of PVE like incursion and WH or LvL5 and just tunel vision of nul sec pvp and FW... it's just pure genius (irony at his max)
CCP in the rest years "re-balance" = nerfing. we had with ishtar and drones.. "invested a new type ship that deal with drones and missiels also. Like we have neuts disruptions or turrets, dumpners... why not give us another card to play with on the battle field! Inset nerf to the ground.
Cap changes incoming... dreads in siege with new capital sub-cap weapons doing 2k dps while you can eWar them.. what dps will do titan with this new weapons since they dont have siege! Rookie ship dps on guns, for a titan NICE!!
Inset of really re-balancing supers. They are going to nerf them to the ground.
I must ask do the people that come with this "re-balance" ideas and get payed for them, do even play the game, really play!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |