EVE Search - WINbuttons

All Channels

Ships and Modules

WINbuttons

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.04 17:59:00 - [31] Originally by: GLok i enjoy threads like this. It shows the typical stupid player in eve, who thinks there is such a thing as a winbutton in eve RUNS TO THE FORUMS GOGO, so they realise they wont win so they join them and generally they try and use it themselves and whilst lacking the pilotting skills dies. Its no longer a winbutton and now it needs a BOOST, GOGO FORUM ALERT!! NERF THIS, BOOST THAT lala. At the end of the day there never has been a "WinButton" everything is counterable, if your smart "winbuttons" are dead, simple as. You sir, are the stupid one. Just because something is counterable doesn't make it any less overpowered. Now go fly your nanophoon while you still can like a good boy and STFU! Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.04 18:12:00 - [32] I edited the OP to include some points that I considered fair. Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.03.04 18:34:00 - [33] man this thread would be funny if the op hadn't been serious... Oh no, wait, that makes it funnier sgb
Kehmor Caldari The Movement	Posted - 2007.03.04 20:13:00 - [34] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Edited by: Deschenus Bull****! First of all, we already have NOTHING BUT cookie-cutter setups! Second, being limited to 1 module of a typed per ship will lead to more diversified setups, simply because when you have spare slots after fitting your tank, you'll have to think of something to fit in them instead of going the usual "more heat sinks/mag stabs/gyros" (this is on an armour tank, obviously). A) cookie cutter setups? Maybe the nubs use them, but frankl I have yet to see any of my bttleship setups or t2 frig setups appear on the forums. Nor my Astarte setup. And yet they all seem very effective, mayeb you would like to come to placid and prove me wrong? B) How, exactly, would you fit th lows on say a navy mega. 1 LAR, 4, hardeners, 1 damage mod, then what? your setup would suck even before you had to take desperate measures to fit mods. How about a scorp, 1 jammer and a 7 slot tank maybe? Get real Mr.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.04 21:01:00 - [35] Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 04/03/2007 20:58:38 Originally by: Kehmor A) cookie cutter setups? Maybe the nubs use them, but frankl I have yet to see any of my bttleship setups or t2 frig setups appear on the forums. Nor my Astarte setup. And yet they all seem very effective, mayeb you would like to come to placid and prove me wrong? Where did I say that "unusual" setups don't work? So I fail to see why you are throwing the gauntlet at me. As for cookie cutter setups and nubs, well these nubs are very effective with their nanophoons and nosdomis... because said cookie-cutter setups WORK. Originally by: Kehmor B) How, exactly, would you fit th lows on say a navy mega. 1 LAR, 4, hardeners, 1 damage mod, then what? your setup would suck even before you had to take desperate measures to fit mods. How about a scorp, 1 jammer and a 7 slot tank maybe? Get real Mr. Navy Mega low slots: LAR II, DCU, Mag Stab, EANM II, explo hardener, Kin hardener, Therm hardener, 1600mm plate. Scorp: As I admitted, EW modules would get exempted from this, as they are essentially "weapons". Try reading the thread before making snyde comments. Thanks you! Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
Kehmor Caldari The Movement	Posted - 2007.03.04 21:08:00 - [36] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 04/03/2007 20:58:38 Originally by: Kehmor A) cookie cutter setups? Maybe the nubs use them, but frankl I have yet to see any of my bttleship setups or t2 frig setups appear on the forums. Nor my Astarte setup. And yet they all seem very effective, mayeb you would like to come to placid and prove me wrong? Where did I say that "unusual" setups don't work? So I fail to see why you are throwing the gauntlet at me. you said we have "nothing but" cookie cutter setups. that mega setup sucks. This change would make damage based ships crap while tank ones would regn supreme. Drone ships in paticular would be un stopable. My myrmidin would out damge my raven. Speaking of the raven how would you fit its low slots? 1 BCU, 1 PDU, 1 Damage control, 2 erm...? As for EW you lsited it as something over powered and yet want to leave it in? consitencey 4tw.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.04 21:23:00 - [37] Originally by: Kehmor you said we have "nothing but" cookie cutter setups. Did I? checks Yes, I did. Apologies, that was an exageration. Still you'll see mostly cookie-cutter setups, because they work. Originally by: Kehmor that mega setup sucks. Lol. Bull** it sucks. Just because you don't like it, don't mean it sucks. It's not a DPS monster, but GUESS WHAT: DPS is not the only use for a Mega (its main use maybe, but not its only use). For someone who prides himself in having setups that differ from the norm, you sure are close-minded. Originally by:** Kehmor This change would make damage based ships crap while tank ones would regn supreme. Drone ships in paticular would be un stopable. My myrmidin would out damge my raven. Speaking of the raven how would you fit its low slots? 1 BCU, 1 PDU, 1 Damage control, 2 erm...? Considering that damage based ships would have a stronger tank as well, I don't see why they would all of a sudden become "crap". Drone ships unstoppable? ORLY? I suppose all of a sudden, their drones would become invulnerable to being popped? Raven low slots: 1 DCU, I BCU, 3 PDS (had you read the thread, again, you'd know that fitting mods are also exempted). Any other ships you want to throw at me? Originally by: Kehmor As for EW you lsited it as something over powered and yet want to leave it in? consitencey 4tw. ECM was overpowered in its form prior to the nerf. If you think it still is, I would point you to the crowd of angry Scorp pilots over there Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.03.04 21:44:00 - [38] imo would just make specializations useless. whats the point in training ages for ECM when you can fit one on your Scorpion? from what i have seen over patch notes while improving my game knowledge, it always been done to make game more specialized, so a pilot could choose a path and follow it, the suggestion of thread author promotes game towards 'jack of all, master of none'. all skills trained, all modules used, same blank setups flown. --- tnx.
Veryez	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:12:00 - [39] Your nerf is too broad: Is fitting 2 EM Hardners on a Shield tank overpowered? What about putting 2 Gyros (or other damage mods) on a Rupture? 2 Shield extenders on a ferox? Should I go on? While I agree with your basic arguement, I believe your solution needs to be thought out a bit better. However it is exactly because of broad statements like the one you made that CCP keeps imbalancing ships. Any changes to balance require long analysis and playtesting, because people will always figure out how to use something differently than you.
Veryez	Posted - 2007.03.04 22:12:00 - [40] Your nerf is too broad: Is fitting 2 EM Hardners on a Shield tank overpowered? What about putting 2 Gyros (or other damage mods) on a Rupture? 2 Shield extenders on a ferox? Should I go on? While I agree with your basic arguement, I believe your solution needs to be thought out a bit better. However it is exactly because of broad statements like the one you made that CCP keeps imbalancing ships. Any changes to balance require long analysis and playtesting, because people will always figure out how to use something differently than you.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.04 23:52:00 - [41] Originally by: Veryez Your nerf is too broad: Is fitting 2 EM Hardners on a Shield tank overpowered? What about putting 2 Gyros (or other damage mods) on a Rupture? 2 Shield extenders on a ferox? Should I go on? While I agree with your basic arguement, I believe your solution needs to be thought out a bit better. However it is exactly because of broad statements like the one you made that CCP keeps imbalancing ships. Any changes to balance require long analysis and playtesting, because people will always figure out how to use something differently than you. I fully understand what you're saying, but I am looking at it from this perspective: I'd rather have less specialised setups, even the ones that are not overpowered (examples you've given) than constantly have to deal with grossly unbalanced setups that keep popping up because of lack of foresight on the part of CCP. Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
Kehmor Caldari The Movement	Posted - 2007.03.05 01:18:00 - [42] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: Veryez Your nerf is too broad: Is fitting 2 EM Hardners on a Shield tank overpowered? What about putting 2 Gyros (or other damage mods) on a Rupture? 2 Shield extenders on a ferox? Should I go on? While I agree with your basic arguement, I believe your solution needs to be thought out a bit better. However it is exactly because of broad statements like the one you made that CCP keeps imbalancing ships. Any changes to balance require long analysis and playtesting, because people will always figure out how to use something differently than you. I fully understand what you're saying, but I am looking at it from this perspective: I'd rather have less specialised setups, even the ones that are not overpowered (examples you've given) than constantly have to deal with grossly unbalanced setups that keep popping up because of lack of foresight on the part of CCP. and there you have lose all credibility. Eve is about specilization, ccp have stated this and i don't think they will budge cause of what you want, because frankly, as you can see from the complete lack of positive feedback, this idea sucks.
TomParad0x Caldari adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2007.03.05 01:42:00 - [43] Edited by: TomParad0x on 05/03/2007 01:43:29 Edited by: TomParad0x on 05/03/2007 01:42:05 Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Now my question is, why do you (CCP) allow this to happen when the solution is blatantly obvious: limit non-weapon modules to 1 per ship! No more time wasted trying to balance inbalances (with the exception where the modules themselves need tweaking, but that is bound to happen anyhow), no more whinning on the forums, no more wailing and gnashing of teeth! This has to be the, with respect, dumbest idea I have heard to date. You think this would cause less whining? Get a clue... This would cause more. This would completely ruin a passive tank, limit to 1 rep ( In a lot of armor tank setups I know you use 2 ). --Sig-- Anything posted by me is my opinion and not that of my corp or alliance.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.05 01:55:00 - [44] Originally by: Kehmor and there you have lose all credibility. Eve is about specilization, ccp have stated this and i don't think they will budge cause of what you want, because frankly, as you can see from the complete lack of positive feedback, this idea sucks. LESS specialized /= not specialized at all. Snipers will be snipers, damage dealers will be damage dealers, etc. As for complete lack of positive feedback, are you ***** blind? Aside from the stupid **s that prefer to flame instead of trying to come up with reasonable arguments, the very least I got was "you have a point, but I'd prefer seeing stacking nerfs, etc.". Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
Kelter Highfire Caldari AirHawk Alliance Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 02:33:00 - [45] I'd disagree with the need to limit any modules to 1 of a type. Frankly, there is no "I win button" in existance. Granted, there have been certain setups that have been highly specialized in certain settings, but there are equally specialized setups to counter the nanos and the other strong gank setups. Yes, there is probably a need for a restructuring of how certain mods stack their bonuses, and this has been addressed by the devs, because they've admitted that they're not happy with the unbalanced amount of strength that nanoinertial battleships and the such have. As a result, I'd imagine that we're going to see some updates to this with the next content patch. About the specialization issue: one of the greatest strengths of this game is PARTICULARLY the ability to become very very strong in certain traits. Why else would there be continual upgrades to the ship types in game, making certain aspects stronger? Inties are designed for top speed situations, and are augmented to their own strength by implants and speed mods. Why remove the fun aspect of the game where you don't really know what to expect when facing another ship in 1v1 situations? It just makes you think of how to reattack the same situation, accounting for the possiblity of seeing a new setup. Iuno if this makes any sense or if i'm just rambling because I'm a couple beers deep, but it seems to make sense to me that the game works as it is, with a little tweaking to remove things that are totally unfair. ________________________________ Kelter Highfire Rock Melter and WT Killer
Nines Tslaruk Minmatar Total Failure	Posted - 2007.03.05 03:05:00 - [46] Edited by: Nines Tslaruk on 05/03/2007 03:09:29 Originally by: Phelan Lore Why stop at weapons? It's way to unbalanced being able to fit lots of the same weapon. A fleet mega should have to fit: 1 425 rail 1 350 rail 1 dual 250 rail 1 1400 howitzer 1 1200 artillary 1 tachyon beam laser 1 mega beam 1 cruise missile launcher This would lead to far more ballanced and diverse PvP and PvE. Why not limit the number of t2 mods you can fit to your ship? Way too overpowered imo. As for your mega setup... mids: 1 sensor booster, 1 shield booster, 1 tracking computer, 1 cargo scanner lows: 1 1600 mm plate, 1 mag stab, 1 tracking enhancer, 1 med armor rep, 1 dcu, 1 cargo expander, 1 mining laser upgrade drones: 1 light drone, 1 medium drone, 1 heavy drone, 1 ecm drone, 1 armor repair drone (hmm, where to spend my t2 mod...) -------------------
James Draekn X.E.N.O. FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 06:57:00 - [47] If Nano-ships are such a issue get a gang with 2-3 dampening celestis' and some webber ships and force them to engage in web range. If they run since you have reduced their lock range down to 5km with a 100 second lock time, you win. The multiple ways of killing/neutralizing things in this game is endless. Although the days of solo ganking are close to over, every now and then some people try to relive the days of the solo ganker and have a setup that does it fairly well. Just force the NANO-pilot to engage how you chose, and he will end up in your trap.
James Draekn X.E.N.O. FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 06:57:00 - [48] If Nano-ships are such a issue get a gang with 2-3 dampening celestis' and some webber ships and force them to engage in web range. If they run since you have reduced their lock range down to 5km with a 100 second lock time, you win. The multiple ways of killing/neutralizing things in this game is endless. Although the days of solo ganking are close to over, every now and then some people try to relive the days of the solo ganker and have a setup that does it fairly well. Just force the NANO-pilot to engage how you chose, and he will end up in your trap.
Thomas Torquemada Minmatar Universal Peace Corp	Posted - 2007.03.05 08:20:00 - [49] If these few ship setups were that brilliant and invincible we'd all be using them, but we dont do we. Yes these may be specialised setups, but they arent invincible, they just hit the headlines when they defeat someone elses standard unimaginitive setup (ie: the usual standard universal tank), then these people run straight to the forums because their reliable setup failed vs the specilised one. Its all about circumstance, even specialised setups get nailed to a setup their not prepared/suited too, theres nothing wrong with any of the setups out there atm, people just need to stop crying when things dont go their way. UPC - PVP'ers Good and Bad, How Do You Want Peace? Through Talk Or In A Casket? We Decide! Peace My Brothers...
Raekone	Posted - 2007.03.05 08:37:00 - [50] The problem with nanophoons isn't the actual nanos imo, it's that they're nossing you while they do it. The nosses aren't penalized by the ship's exessive speed like turrets etc are. Honestly it's fine by me if he's going at 5000m/s and I can't touch him because of that, but only if he basically can't touch me either. Otherwise it's a borderline exploit really.
Breed Love FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 11:35:00 - [51] Op is a noob and he needs to crawl back into his hole now. Seriously. Maybe start playing the game and come back in a few months, when you've learnt something. ----- Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker At this time I am more disgusted by the player base then with the dev to be honest! QFT!!
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.05 12:03:00 - [52] @Kelter Highfire: Like I said, there will still be specialisation, it simply won't go to the extremes it has reached now. You'll still be able to fit a sniper setup, but you'll shoot a few less kilometers, that's all! @James Draekn and Thomas Torquemada: The issue is not wether the I-WIN buttons can be countered or not, its that to counter said setups require very specialised setups that are not going to be always available if you're not on "nanoalert" 23/7. Not only that, but in the case of nanos, most of the time, all you will be able to do is drive it away, not actually kill it. No setup should allow you to flee so easily (and the Devs share this view, as stated in the nanoblog). @Raekone: I agree. @Breed Love: Flaming: When you're too dumb to just STFU. Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
Janos Zebratul	Posted - 2007.03.05 12:19:00 - [53] I agree the nanophoon is maybe a tad overpowered, but it's fair to say that there's only a few, because to get desired speed you need to spend quite a bit of isk. And you need to be able to fly it properly to not throw away said amount of money. That said, needs a slight "balance" (nerf heh) but it's not the end of the world. So, limiting the modules to 1 per ship...all the reasons have been posted as to why this is..eh..bad. ___________________ we have explosive.
kill0rbunny Chimera Intelligence Agency	Posted - 2007.03.05 13:01:00 - [54] I get your point now. You won a ship scanner II and cargo scanner II bpo in the lottery, and no one is buying your modules. So why not introduce a stupid nerf so that someone actually considers fitting such crap in their mid slots? You won't get through with it. Killboard
Breed Love FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 13:12:00 - [55] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus @Breed Love: Flaming: When you're too dumb to just STFU. Atleast im flaming, you are just spamming ----- Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker At this time I am more disgusted by the player base then with the dev to be honest! QFT!!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 13:18:00 - [56] 1 per ship? Are you nuts? What a shield tanker will put in low slots if it can use 1 damage and 1 nano? Every setup would be teh same in battleships since there would not be enough modules to fill all slots. Very dumb idea. Stack nerfing everything also do not wwork. Plats and extenders for example cannto be stack nerfed, because they effect is already only linear and just mak eyou need more time to kill the enemy. But for sure NOS must be stack nerfed as well as Agility. Speed mods also should be % of base ship speed. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.05 14:04:00 - [57] Originally by: kill0rbunny I get your point now. You won a ship scanner II and cargo scanner II bpo in the lottery, and no one is buying your modules. So why not introduce a stupid nerf so that someone actually considers fitting such crap in their mid slots? You won't get through with it. Oh noes! My evil plan has been revealed! But oh wait! I had not foreseen that the following are also midslot items: -AB/MWD -Cap injectors -tracking computers -scrams -webs -sensor boosters -dampeners -turret disruptors -target painters -ECM -cap rechargers -cap batteries -not to mention all shield-tank mods Hmm... CCP, can you invent a ship with 14+ midslots please so my crappy ship scanners and cargo scanners sell, please? Oh! and implement my "stupid nerf" as well, so I can become UBER RICH! BWUAHAHAHAH! Seriously, try having some imagination with your setups. Originally by: Breed Love Atleast im flaming, you are just spamming Flaming is prohibited by forum rules. As for spamming, please direct me to where I am doing this. Originally by: Kagura Nikon 1 per ship? Are you nuts? What a shield tanker will put in low slots if it can use 1 damage and 1 nano? sigh What ship do you want me to give you a setup for? I've already given one for the Raven, so pick another, please. Originally by: Kagura Nikon Every setup would be teh same in battleships since there would not be enough modules to fill all slots. Again, give me a ship, and I'll give you a setup for it. Originally by: Kagura Nikon Very dumb idea. Well, at least you gave arguments before flaming. Originally by: Kagura Nikon Stack nerfing everything also do not wwork. Plats and extenders for example cannto be stack nerfed, because they effect is already only linear and just mak eyou need more time to kill the enemy. I agree, hence why I am suggesting limiting it to just 1 per ship. Originally by: Kagura Nikon But for sure NOS must be stack nerfed as well as Agility. Speed mods also should be % of base ship speed. Well, at least we agree on one thing... in principle, at least. Anyways, IBTL D-F-C Killboard
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.05 14:19:00 - [58] You simply cannot get teh point can you? For example when i decide to shield tank a tempest, I do it because this enables me to fit 3 damage mod in low slotsand most likely 2 speed mods, so I can rule range and deal more damage. If I could use only 1 of each, would be stupid to shield tank a tempest. In fact, you deserve a prize as the creator of the most stupid idea ever presented on this forums. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Dark Flare Caldari Corpus PCG	Posted - 2007.03.05 14:26:00 - [59] You're defending your idea well, but that's the problem. It has to be defended rather than promoted, so the plus points are too few and far between. It's an interesting solution, but I don't think it'll work.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.03.05 14:30:00 - [60] Originally by: Kagura Nikon You simply cannot get teh point can you? Read on... Originally by: Kagura Nikon For example when i decide to shield tank a tempest, I do it because this enables me to fit 3 damage mod in low slotsand most likely 2 speed mods, so I can rule range and deal more damage. With my suggestion, you could still fit 1 damage mod and 1 speed mod. Since all would be limited thusly, your speed advantage would still stand. As for the lost damage, you could compensate with having a stronger tank (DCU, PDS, SPR) and/or more range (TE). Or if you insist on keeping speed, you could go with 1 overdrive injector, 1 nano and 1 inertial stab. Originally by: Kagura Nikon If I could use only 1 of each, would be stupid to shield tank a tempest. Point disproved. Originally by: Kagura Nikon In fact, you deserve a prize as the creator of the most stupid idea ever presented on this forums. FLAMING When you can't think of logical arguments and are too dumb to STFU

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.