EVE Search - RIP SMALL GANG PVP

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

RIP SMALL GANG PVP

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
maCH'EttE Furnace Thermodynamics 198	Posted - 2016.05.07 03:04:21 - [1] - Quote CCP, you know your buff to carriers and fighters are broken right! Like seriously, you cant be this dumb and one sides. Buff to carriers(Fighters going over 10km, 2.3km with out the micro, perfect tracking, insane dps and volley), the upcoming link changes, and just the changes over the pasty year or to, have f**** small gang to the ground. THanks foziee d*bag.
Davian Thule Pirkibo Dirt 'n' Glitter Local Is Primary 17	Posted - 2016.05.07 03:18:58 - [2] - Quote no comment on the carrier issue, they want more carrier and dread pvp, i guess. However the links is bulls*** , i do small gang pvp all the time in low sec and were are sick to the teeth of links. They kill pvp more because theres no counter except bring your own links or dock up. Its especially infuriating in solo pvp when you have an enemy go twice his normal speed cold, in many scenarios you cant tell your dealing with links until its too late. Death to off grid links!.
maCH'EttE Furnace Thermodynamics 198	Posted - 2016.05.07 03:27:50 - [3] - Quote I agree with you, but, if links become what they are pushing for, it will be only the blobs having links, not smal gang pvp'ers who fight the blob. Can not comment on your situation. I think they should just remove links period, and give sp back. CARRIERS ARE OP AS F, AND THEY KNOW IT.
Nat Silverguard Aideron Robotics 452	Posted - 2016.05.07 04:31:50 - [4] - Quote if only there was a chance to test this new things (including the carriers) in a test server for us to be able to give our feedback/comments so that CCP might have changed it before it became live. nobody is omnipotent and the new features for the carrier is ok for cap fights which i guess is what they want to do. so, stop QQing, nobody gave CCP the feedback they require therefore they didn't do anything. suck it up, post on the appropriate thread and wait. Just Add Water
Unconspicous Alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2016.05.07 04:39:26 - [5] - Quote The carriers were broken before. Now ccp finaly did the right thing. I mean, realistically speaking, in what world and with what physics can 3-4 boats sunk a CARRIER ? Problem is that now 3-4 boats can take down a citadel :)
Sustrai Aditua Irubo Kovu 163	Posted - 2016.05.07 04:43:17 - [6] - Quote One well-aimed torpedo fired from one submarine can take out a carrier. That's why carriers float around in the "carrier task force". Google is your friend. PS Putting all our eggs in one basket is using fozzie-thinking...or was that fuzzy logic? *If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.*
MidnightWyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 229	Posted - 2016.05.07 04:50:09 - [7] - Quote I thought I hated these forums, but eventually I learned that I love them. On the day CCP releases a change that no one bitches about, I will be quite assured of EVE's demise. Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS! Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
Netan MalDoran Last Garrison 201	Posted - 2016.05.07 06:12:29 - [8] - Quote I'm not a carrier pilot, but I had the opportunitiy to have my Thorax get vaporized by one yesterday, The feeling of power was awesome! I actually feel happy for the other guy! Seems that they put life back into cap combat. Offgrid links were broken, better now that they are on grid so that you know what you are up against and that you can now kill them. "Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was! Falcon's truth
Kieron VonDeux 193	Posted - 2016.05.07 06:32:47 - [9] - Quote Sustrai Aditua wrote: One well-aimed torpedo fired from one submarine can take out a carrier. That's why carriers float around in the "carrier task force". Google is your friend. PS Putting all our eggs in one basket is using fozzie-thinking...or was that fuzzy logic? Eve Online not equal to real life.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1173	Posted - 2016.05.07 06:34:13 - [10] - Quote Blow up the fighters. Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Gimme Sake State War Academy Caldari State 287	Posted - 2016.05.07 06:45:12 - [11] - Quote When folks dislike something they bring on the "it is not realistic" argument; when they like a change, the "ya know it's fantasy" card is on the table. You better decide: is this the real life, is it just fantasy... Btw why are the FAX MACHINES so BIG compared to regular carriers? "Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Galaxxis Unicorn Rampage 59	Posted - 2016.05.07 07:00:21 - [12] - Quote Get over it! No more free kills due to horribly broken mechanics.
Aiwha Infinite Point Violence of Action. 1173	Posted - 2016.05.07 07:14:02 - [13] - Quote Gimme Sake wrote: When folks dislike something they bring on the "it is not realistic" argument; when they like a change, the "ya know it's fantasy" card is on the table. You better decide: is this the real life, is it just fantasy... Btw why are the FAX MACHINES so BIG compared to regular carriers? CCP have said that they want to "rebalance" capital and supercapital sizes along with the station/citadels to bring everything a bit more in line scale wise. Sanity is fun leaving the body.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 1521	Posted - 2016.05.07 07:18:47 - [14] - Quote Carriers needed this, yes you won't be able to take one down easy, you now have a challenge. This brings a whole new style of gameplay to Eve the way fighters are now implemented and I just went mad doing a max out training plan for carrier and fighter skills. But knowing my luck CCP will decide to nerf them because of people whining just as I get max skills... Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
Dani Gallar University of Caille Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2016.05.07 07:19:11 - [15] - Quote Sustrai Aditua wrote: One well-aimed torpedo fired from one submarine can take out a carrier. That's why carriers float around in the "carrier task force". Google is your friend. PS Putting all our eggs in one basket is using fozzie-thinking...or was that fuzzy logic? By that logic Stealth Bombers (submarines) should be the greatest threat in the game and IMPOSSIBLE to target for most other ships (except for Destroyers who should be OP against Stealth Bombers but suck against most other threats). See how lucky it is that EVE Online:s fantasy Spaceships are not based around Real Life Earths Naval Vessels. In my opinion the best way to create balance in EVE is to look at the cost (ISK) for each 'Fleet'. In other words a Carrier should be able to take on a 'Fleet' of about simillar value and in order to bring one down the opposition should need to bring ships of a greater total ISK-value (and then expect to loose a few of them anyway). Now the way it was before was that Carriers where Underpowered so perhaps CCP make the classical mistake of buffing them to much and if this is the case I'm sure they will continue to tweak the balance further. However I don-¦t think making these sort of threads called 'NERFFFF FFS' is the way to do it when there is a feedback thread to Citadels where one could post it instead.
Gimme Sake State War Academy Caldari State 288	Posted - 2016.05.07 07:19:29 - [16] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Gimme Sake wrote: When folks dislike something they bring on the "it is not realistic" argument; when they like a change, the "ya know it's fantasy" card is on the table. You better decide: is this the real life, is it just fantasy... Btw why are the FAX MACHINES so BIG compared to regular carriers? CCP have said that they want to "rebalance" capital and supercapital sizes along with the station/citadels to bring everything a bit more in line scale wise. Then probably they should scale all ships to match their sig radius. P.S. If a fighter can one shot a cruiser then... shouldn't a cruiser be able to... eh never mind. "Never not blob!" ~ Plato
Terminator Cindy Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 30	Posted - 2016.05.07 11:18:17 - [17] - Quote Sustrai Aditua wrote: One well-aimed torpedo fired from one submarine can take out a carrier. That's why carriers float around in the "carrier task force". Petition CCP to invent a submarine that can fly in space. The reason submarines are a threat on sea is that they function in another environment (underwater ) where they can be almost undetectable. This is not the case here. There is no area around a carrier that cannot be reached by fighters. Wanna take down a carrier, then come prepared to destroy those. After that the carrier is defenseless and pretty low on hp.
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 11950	Posted - 2016.05.07 11:26:06 - [18] - Quote My Faction Tear Collectors are working just fine, though Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Bumble's Space Log
Marin Lunaire The Wandering Monks of Venal 4	Posted - 2016.05.07 11:43:30 - [19] - Quote Negating each and every subcap piloting tactic by creating carrier no flyzones is such an obvious terrible idea that i'm seriously puzled how this went through. This is not engaging gameplay. The counter to massive ships should always be speed as in: Fast things outrun fighters.
Max Fubarticus The Scope Gallente Federation 111	Posted - 2016.05.07 12:25:29 - [20] - Quote Nat Silverguard wrote: if only there was a chance to test this new things (including the carriers) in a test server for us to be able to give our feedback/comments so that CCP might have changed it before it became live. nobody is omnipotent and the new features for the carrier is ok for cap fights which i guess is what they want to do. so, stop QQing, nobody gave CCP the feedback they require therefore they didn't do anything. suck it up, post on the appropriate thread and wait. They were available for testing on sisi and feedback was given. The carrier is not omnipotent. It CAN be taken down by a small gang. You just have to figure it out. Tactics have changed. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Max Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.

Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 508	Posted - 2016.05.07 12:30:54 - [21] - Quote I've not done much small gang stuff involving carriers since the citadel changes, but can you not simply kill the fighters? I would have thought sub caps would excel at killing them pretty effectively leaving the carrier with no DPS. The current carriers are surely far better than the fleets of spider tanking carriers of the previous era. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Marin Lunaire The Wandering Monks of Venal 4	Posted - 2016.05.07 12:33:04 - [22] - Quote Max Fubarticus wrote: Nat Silverguard wrote: if only there was a chance to test this new things (including the carriers) in a test server for us to be able to give our feedback/comments so that CCP might have changed it before it became live. nobody is omnipotent and the new features for the carrier is ok for cap fights which i guess is what they want to do. so, stop QQing, nobody gave CCP the feedback they require therefore they didn't do anything. suck it up, post on the appropriate thread and wait. They were available for testing on sisi and feedback was given. The carrier is not omnipotent. It CAN be taken down by a small gang. You just have to figure it out. Tactics have changed. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Max The problem is that the test Server is disproportionately populated with cap pilots. This created the very bias that made this change possible. let me say it again: carriers create no-fly zones for small gangs and solo pilots. Now think about the word no-fly zone for a second or maybe a little longer and think about how this will effect EVE. No-fly zone. Get it?
MidnightWyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 233	Posted - 2016.05.07 12:45:42 - [23] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Carriers needed this, yes you won't be able to take one down easy, you now have a challenge. This brings a whole new style of gameplay to Eve the way fighters are now implemented and I just went mad doing a max out training plan for carrier and fighter skills. But knowing my luck CCP will decide to nerf them because of people whining just as I get max skills... Hopefully they ignore the whining the same way they ignored all those threads demanding they remove Aegis Sov and go back to the Dominion model. Marin Lunaire wrote: Negating each and every subcap piloting tactic by creating carrier no fly zones is such an obvious terrible idea that i'm seriously puzzled how this went through. This is not engaging gameplay. The counter to massive ships should always be speed as in: Fast things outrun fighters. Yeah, that's similar to how it used to be where a single frigate could grab a carrier and hold it permanently. Have you ever considered how non-engaging it is for the person flying the carrier who is now a helpless sitting duck just because the frigate that grabbed him can fly really fast? Part of the reason we now have the Heavy Stasis Grappler is because this bullshit of "GOTTA GO FAST" being an I-win-button was severely hampering the survivability of anything above Cruiser size. I would suggest re-examining your tactics and finding a new way to counter fighters. They may be powerful but they aren't completely without counters, after all. You realize you can jam an entire squadron of them with one ECM? Fit 5 T1 ECM on a Griffin and you've instantly negated ALL of the carrier's damage output. That's at least the way it was on Singularity, and I didn't see anything about them changing that. Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS! Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
Marin Lunaire The Wandering Monks of Venal 5	Posted - 2016.05.07 13:53:09 - [24] - Quote MidnightWyvern wrote: Yeah, that's similar to how it used to be where a single frigate could grab a carrier and hold it permanently. Have you ever considered how non-engaging it is for the person flying the carrier who is now a helpless sitting duck just because the frigate that grabbed him can fly really fast? Part of the reason we now have the Heavy Stasis Grappler is because this bullshit of "GOTTA GO FAST" being an I-win-button was severely hampering the survivability of anything above Cruiser size. Kiting takes a lot of skill and is far from being an i-win button. Look i'm not saying that carriers shoudl get killed or held down infinitely by frigs. Give them a bonus to light drones for stuff that tackels them -fine with me. 10k m/s fighters with insane tracking which just volley you off the field are a gamebreaker for a whole style of gameplay tho. If small mobile attacking gangs which are willing to take on the enemy in his own backyard are forced to sacrifice several of their sparse pilot slots for boring jamboats to counter carriers they won't roam there at all. That's just how it works. Killing one playstyle to buff another is bad and negating andy piloting tactics is bad aswell. There are ways to make carrier pilots and small gang/solo pilots happy and such a solution would be good for the game in the long run. MidnightWyvern wrote: Yeah, there are many of them, but there are an equal number of sub-cap pilots flying around. Still the cap/subcap pilot ratio is vastly disproportional compared to tq. Meaning: Cap pilots are vastly overrepresented. That's just fact. Listen I don't want your carriers to be sitting ducks or anything but 10k m/s fighters which just volley frigs of the field are insanely op. Give people who like to fly smaller hulls some room to maneuver. Literally.
Thomas Lot Astrocomical Warped Intentions 21	Posted - 2016.05.07 13:59:13 - [25] - Quote Marin Lunaire wrote: Negating each and every subcap piloting tactic by creating carrier no fly zones is such an obvious terrible idea that i'm seriously puzzled how this went through. This is not engaging gameplay. The counter to massive ships should always be speed as in: Fast things outrun fighters. The fighters ARE the fast things. No one is going to outrun fighters, nor should they be able to. I've dunked carriers before and laughed at how easy it was. Hell I was even on the KM on a couple when flying a Skiff. Carriers are finally working correctly.
Marin Lunaire The Wandering Monks of Venal 5	Posted - 2016.05.07 14:10:20 - [26] - Quote Thomas Lot wrote: Marin Lunaire wrote: Negating each and every subcap piloting tactic by creating carrier no fly zones is such an obvious terrible idea that i'm seriously puzzled how this went through. This is not engaging gameplay. The counter to massive ships should always be speed as in: Fast things outrun fighters. The fighters ARE the fast things. No one is going to outrun fighters, nor should they be able to. I've dunked carriers before and laughed at how easy it was. Hell I was even on the KM on a couple when flying a Skiff. Carriers are finally working correctly. Look, this is an mmo. While in reality carriers might be the ultimate weapon in Eve Online virtuality 10k m/s supertracking fighters which apply carrier damage to frigs anihilate a whole style of gameplay. As it is this change dumps down pvp as a whole and it would be in our all best intrest to reach a balanced compromise. For instance: Give Carriers a Bonus to drone hp and damage but let fighters miss small stuff. That way the carrier pilot had to chose the correct tool and smaller hull pilots had time to even react.
Daemun Khanid Kameiran Order Team Amarrica 545	Posted - 2016.05.07 14:17:40 - [27] - Quote I've really only been primaried by a carrier one time and it was on an undock. I was able to tank him in a cruiser long enough to lose my aggression timer and redock. If carriers are killing s*** now, good for them. They should be. Daemun of Khanid
Daerrol The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 301	Posted - 2016.05.07 14:40:42 - [28] - Quote I fully agree with you mate. I was out in Lowsec like 10 hours ago shooting a Cynabal who was solo in my prophecy (I was solo too) After he killed all my drones and I neuted his capacitor to zero neither of us could break the other so we just sorta warped off like "awkward..." Either way I'm not sure where the small gangs have gone but it's been a boon to my solo career!
maCH'EttE Furnace Thermodynamics 202	Posted - 2016.05.07 15:35:33 - [29] - Quote Drones going over 10000kmps and hit with tracking of a frigate seems fair and balanced..
MidnightWyvern Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance 235	Posted - 2016.05.07 17:12:47 - [30] - Quote maCH'EttE wrote: Drones going over 10000kmps and hit with tracking of a frigate seems fair and balanced.. So does ludicrous hyperbole about Fighter capability. So far we're getting claims that nothing in the entire game can outrun them, they instantly kill everything they shoot, and you can somehow be locked up and destroyed before burning back to the gate in an MWD Frigate, which generally takes less than 3 seconds. Seriously, guys? Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS! Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.