|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
0
   |
Posted - 2017.06.09 15:35:24 -
[1] - Quote
You guys are ruining this game and this comes from somebody who barely rats. Isk making in this game is boring as all hell. You are needing t3cs that run dead sites, you are nerfing rorquals that mine and carriers that rat. The only thing left are high sec incursions that come at virtually 0 risk and provide absolutely 0 content for PvP players unless you'd like to go suicide ganking.
Wih moon towers slated to be removed next and shooting citadels being even less fun to shoot than red triangles what exactly is left in space to shoot? VNIs? Woohoo.
On and that ghost training people have made hundreds of billions from by now? Let's just ignore that little nugget altogether shall we? If you don't say anything maybe it will just go away right? |
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 15:41:33 -
[2] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:HRRNighthawk wrote:Instead of nerfing Carriers, which you actively have to control the fighters to make your money (and not get them killed), how about you do something about AFK VNIs?
Do you actually think this distinction matters in the context of the money supply? They know how much ISK is being generated by each ship in a given period of time. They're not "doing something" about AFK VNIs because they're trying to address the money supply problem, not the problem of carrier pilots who are ass-sore that VNI pilots are getting much smaller ticks for much less effort.
A carrier that costs 20 times that of a VNI and actually requires paying attention should make much more per hour not to mention the content it provides other people. |
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 15:57:39 -
[3] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
There is nothing to listen to (other than the concern about PVP capability). People are being dumb about all this, mostly because they don't know enough not to.
It's going to be ok. It will take a while to deplete some stockpiles of dead space gear, blueprints and built pirate ships. it will take some time for the lessening of the isk supply to be felt. But after it does ratters will be in a better place than we are now.
All of which is moot. Almost none of you are actually going to quit, almost all of you are going to benefit from this change in short order, and CCP is not going to pull back from this change no matter how many times ISD has to clean this thread of profanity (lol).
TL;DR this is yet another 'blowing off steam' thread that CCP puts up to let you get it out of your system. Nothing you say is going to change anything.
No I'll be unsubscribing my accounts now. They will see a slope in player count after 4 upcoming nerfs now and not a single buff to anything and still not addressing ghost training or the horrendousness that is shooting citadels.
Rorquals have been nerfed 3 times now, carriers are now entirely useless in PvE and PvP (a rattlesnake does as much dps as an archon or chimera now), t3c are getting nerfed as are pirate battleships, this is also an indirect nerf to ded site runners who now have less of them to run and will now have more competition so even if worth more when a bpc drops might not actually be any higher of an income. Also high end wormhole PvE is **** now compared to old days so you are left with the excitement that is high sec incursions for isk.
Making isk in this game is boring as hell and CCP knows that. They have continuously removed things to shoot at in space doing actual PvE and now will be pushing plex even harder than before. I'm done, I'm really done and it's sad because I've loved this game for so many years and watched CCP make so many terrible decisions they are really very lucky they have 0 competition in this space right now.
|
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 17:31:03 -
[4] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Tara Read wrote:So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice. They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post.
Have you actually flown a carrier in PvP before? Thats absolute BS. A rattlesnake now does more damage than an archon... |
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:11:13 -
[5] - Quote
C09 wrote:Making some new anomalies for capital ships is too difficult for CCP?
I mean they couldn't even implement the blood raider engineering complexes properly. It was taken down by frigates... |
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:12:18 -
[6] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:C09 wrote:Making some new anomalies for capital ships is too difficult for CCP? Either the anomaly will let carriers/supers generate more ISK/hours because of the rats included or the carrier/supers will just continue running the current ones.
If existing sites were gated to sub caps and capital only sites for caps then no it wouldn't be that way. It's not a terrible idea. |
Vetus Metallicus
Blue Angels Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:24:18 -
[7] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Tara Read wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Tara Read wrote:So next time you want to clarify that this was mainly a DPS nerf to put Supers more in line with HAW Titans why don't you go with that angle instead of from the PVE angle and have everyone freak out? It implies you nerfed fighter dps solely for a PVE majority. Clarification would have been nice. They literally said in the OP they though carriers/supers were over performing in PvP and the change would alleviate some of this. Too bad people didn't read all the way to the end of the post. Their main reasoning was a PVE based nerf. Read carefully next time  Of course the main reason is PVE but that does not change the point. They are not too concerned about the PVP ramification because they think the ships are doing a bit too well anyway. That is why they are not trying a PVE only change. They might be totally wrong but that does not change their point of view.
If you think PvP performance has anything to do with this you have never actually flown a carrier in PvP fleet before. Your fighters can be jammed by a million isk griffin for christ sake. |
|
|
| |
|