EVE Search - Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
The Economist	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:58:00 - [1261] *Summarised Ideas:* 1. Scrap all changes proposed in the blog and apologise for the fact that anyone thought they were good ideas at all. 2. Nerf Capital Insurance. 3. Overhaul Triage. This module is your way to boost carriers' logistics capabilities without unnecessarily nerfing fighters and upsetting everyone, and without making them overshadow logistics ships (which just increasing things like base lock time/cap rep range etc on carriers would imo). It needs looking at anyway, you want to boost carrier logistics while limiting offensive capabilities so as not to un-balance things, it's a logistics reconfiguration module, it reduces the amount of fighters you can use....match made in heaven I'd say. What bout combining your idea with triage and boosting it by allowing fighter delegation but not direct control? Personally i've tried to think of ways to boost triage, but everything I think of tends to be overpowering in some way. Reduce the cap use too much and it's too good, allow it to be repper/transferred it could become too good etc, very tricky imo. GL 4. Overhaul drone UI (coming already I hear) 5. Fix the lag associated with drones. I know it's probably a complicated issue but it's one that really needs lots of attention. A while back you simply reduced the amount of drones we could field and boosted their effectiveness as a quick fix for drone lag. Well I think we're seeing that fix reach the limit of it's effectiveness. Now you could continue down the same path, which would logically over time end up with everyone fielding 1 drone, or re-work the code from the ground up. I would have thought that the upcoming big patch was the time to overhaul it. <---------- This is the no.1 most popular issue, not any of the problems you've just managed to invent and then try to fix in such a ham-fisted way. 6. Do something about MS in low sec. Personally I don't see this as a problem since they can still be killed, as has been demonstrated, however it would stop a lot of whining heh. Many suggestions elsewhere in this thread. 7. Reduce the docking range on gallente outposts so that carriers playing peek-a-boo outside don't effectively have a 60km+ invulnerability field around them In terms of everything else....leave well alone. Carriers and MS are being used on the front lines (good); carriers and MS are dying left, right and center (good); solo carriers and MS are flying coffins (good); their firepower is, as has been stated many times already neither Godly nor tiny but just about right (good) while itself being vulnerable (good); carriers and ms are simple to counter if you know what you're doing (good); they don't make BS obsolete despite your concerns, just look at average fleet makeups, especially where capitals are involved (good); they aren't solopwnmobiles (good); they can choose between being on the front line, remote repping and comtrolling their fighters directly or sitting back in relative safety and delegating (choice = good); and I don't know wtf you're smoking but a MS cannot kill a BS in 0.2 seconds, obviously you were indulging in hyperbole, but even so....that's a ridiculous and unrealistic claim. Seriously......don't fix what's not broken.....work on fixing what is....LIKE TRIAGE - the module which is designed to emphasise the "being able to keep other ships alive" part just as you're currently trying to do in a massively ham-fisted way. This whole issue is demonstrating, in many people's eyes, a woeful lack of understanding of the way the game currently stands and of the large-scale ramifications of your proposed changes. The best course of action right now is to back-pedal, back-pedal as fast as you can, back-pedal like your lives depend on it, hell, back-pedal like you're being chased by Backdoor Bandit and the whole Minmatar *** Rights League. [and of course do everything I suggest Sig removed. Please keep sigs to 400x120 pixels and 24000 bytes in size or less. -Kaemonn
Rusty PwnStar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 - [1262] Originally by: Max Teranous On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance? The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked. You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ??? Signed. Just take alook at your own sig Verone, that says it all tbh. Regards Rusty
Aenis Veros Caldari Alphaflight	Posted - 2007.10.22 10:59:00 - [1263] Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Verone gets a cookie Also it would help if people could try to look passed their own bias when they reply with constructive criticism. Takk PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me Let's giggle and joke about the legitimate concern of the vast majority of the playerbase. Smart.
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:00:00 - [1264] Originally by: Max Teranous Originally by: Verone Originally by: Max Teranous Attempt at whit. See what i did there ? Yeah, and it still didn't work. changing the words slightly doesn't take the problem away. They problem that the sheer damage needed to take down a supercapital is in no sense even remotely comparable to a battleship, even for a small corporation. On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance? The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked. You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ??? OMG. You are so right! Let's nerf the domi! - Recruitment open again-
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:02:00 - [1265] Edited by: Icome4u on 22/10/2007 11:03:24 Originally by: The Economist In terms of everything else....leave well alone. Carriers and MS are being used on the front lines (good); carriers and MS are dying left, right and center (good); solo carriers and MS are flying coffins (good); their firepower is, as has been stated many times already neither Godly nor tiny but just about right (good) while itself being vulnerable (good); carriers and ms are simple to counter if you know what you're doing (good); they don't make BS obsolete despite your concerns, just look at average fleet makeups, especially where capitals are involved (good); they aren't solopwnmobiles (good); they can choose between being on the front line, remote repping and comtrolling their fighters directly or sitting back in relative safety and delegating (choice = good); and I don't know wtf you're smoking but a MS cannot kill a BS in 0.2 seconds, obviously you were indulging in hyperbole, but even so....that's a ridiculous and unrealistic claim. ^^That This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:03:00 - [1266] Originally by: Aenis Veros post You're missing my point completely. To be honest, I'm going to sit back and watch this thread. It's clear to me that there is too much bias... and I admit my own is included there. For the 0.0 alliances, it's the sheer laziness of not having to delegate fighters in large engagements and the want to win at all costs. For the small gang combatants who actually want more of an enjoyable engagement than a slideshow and a cynoblob it's the fact they're sick of being carrier bombed at every opportunity even when outnumbered. Like I said in my first post, it's hilarious that the same people we simply walk away from an engagement with are the ones whining about the changes in this thread. To clarify... Veto Corp have carrier pilots, we use those carriers when we see fit to SUPPORT A GANG. Personally, I think these changes are awesome, and I'm gonna get more of my guys into capitals if this comes along. >>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:04:00 - [1267] Originally by: Tobias Sjodin OMG. You are so right! Let's nerf the domi! I should STFU actually, i have a gallente combat alt Max --------------------

CCP Eris Discordia	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:04:00 - [1268] Originally by: Sin mez Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way. with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale. Pink Dread has been hijacked

Callistus Stimulus	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:06:00 - [1269] Originally by: Verone I can't see what the problem is for 0.0 alliances... you blob like hell... have fun with your slideshow engagements and calling primary and secondary... so it's not like you're unable to find the numbers to effectively delegate your fighters to gang members. But thats exactly the problem, its impossible to effectively delegate fighters in a large-scale, laggy slideshow engagement. --------
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:07:00 - [1270] Originally by: Verone Originally by: Aenis Veros post You're missing my point completely. To be honest, I'm going to sit back and watch this thread. It's clear to me that there is too much bias... and I admit my own is included there. For the 0.0 alliances, it's the sheer laziness of not having to delegate fighters in large engagements and the want to win at all costs. For the small gang combatants who actually want more of an enjoyable engagement than a slideshow and a cynoblob it's the fact they're sick of being carrier bombed at every opportunity even when outnumbered. Like I said in my first post, it's hilarious that the same people we simply walk away from an engagement with are the ones whining about the changes in this thread. To clarify... Veto Corp have carrier pilots, we use those carriers when we see fit to SUPPORT A GANG. Personally, I think these changes are awesome, and I'm gonna get more of my guys into capitals if this comes along. I use my carriers to support my gang. Never flown it alone i don't want to die. I can say the same thing about 90% of the carrier/MS pilots i know. One MS pilot does use his to pirate in low sec, and i'm sure everyone knows what happen to him... If you guys keep getting blobed by carriers, STOP PICKING FIGHTS WITH THOSE GUYS. Or simply bring your carriers/dreads. Again, if you can't LEAVE. No need to nerf an entire class of ships because you guys can't kill them w/o bringing the adequate ships/numbers! EVE = New SWG i tell yah... This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.

Clamn8er Refuge of the Damned	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:08:00 - [1271] Originally by: Verone Not at all. Carriers have made small gang PvP a lot more versatile and have made for better engagements on the whole. ... The carriers/motherships in 0.0 alliance slideshow engagements have the support to delegate fighters to people. So effectively people just need to be able to use them well. ... In small gang pvp it's going to mean that a gang leader thinks "is it worth jumping a carrier in, do i have enough people to use my DPS? do i have enough people there as support?" More often than not, the answer will be no... and there'll be a good engagement without capital blobbing because of it. Verone with due respect it seems like you are arguing both sides here. The "small gang" pvp that you so much cherish, which you believe has been rendered "more versatile" by carriers will clearly lose its "versatility" if they are nerfed. But of greater importance is that SMALL CORPS (I say again) WILL BE EXCLUDED from being able to use Capitals simply because we do not have the numbers, while big corps still maintain the ability to "drop" caps on you at will. Now how is that going to boost small-gang pvp engagement??? Surely this is not your aim. ONCE AGAIN, small corps are nerfed against the blobbers. Why is this the case? The way we play, we are a small corp and you can bring all the capitals you want. If the numbers are small, we will try to take them down. if your numbers are overwhelming we will tactically withdraw. And on occasion we will "drop" our own in on the party. Now why is CCP taking that away from us? .. [oh and PS, if that is not "constructive criticism" mr. flaming discordia (curiously apt name you have chosen for yourself there) then maybe you can add to the debate a little more "constructively" and guide us by your light ]
Arthin Mutin Vigilantes Rubb	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:09:00 - [1272] Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Originally by: Sin mez Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way. with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale. The only thing I utterly dittest about this idea is how unbalanced it is for the carriers that are jumping into the fight, were as the carriers already there would have all there fighters delegated the carriers jumping in will have to wait AGEs delegating fighters in that time there already dead to the other capitals, Also you complain about capital blobs with no support? there sitting ducks easy to kill, But thats how they want to play the game they pay to play, so why force them to have to form a fleet to just go have alittle fun?
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:09:00 - [1273] Edited by: Max Teranous on 22/10/2007 11:13:11 Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale. A carrier solo is not a win button, it is an expensive target that will go down like a sack of **** to a gang. I know, that's how i lost one. The only thing that need to be fixed from a game design point of view is there currently no mechanism to tackle a mothership in low sec. There should be. The bigger issue is lag and how all ships perform in it, but as already stated this proposed change is not for lag reasons. Max --------------------
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:09:00 - [1274] Originally by: Verone Nothing has changed here other than the need for people to use their brains a little more. If you actually read the thread, you might have to concede that there are several practical implications for playing style, micromanaging issues with both lag and mechanics, loss of damage from skills etc. You just came to this thread with a preconceived perception that fits your existing biased agenda, both ingame and out of it, bearing in mind that you're most likely sitting at CCP HQ at the moment. ---
Tetsujin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 - [1275] fighter lag is sort of like the billboard code where no-one actually knows what's going on isn't it
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 - [1276] About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 - [1277] Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/10/2007 11:11:39 Seems to me that small gang warfare would benefit from carrier support, especially when facing the famed "Blob". There are many angles to view this from. - Recruitment open again-
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:11:00 - [1278] Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Originally by: Sin mez Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way. with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale. Go through the 1300ish posts then. The post you made before made you look like a total ass. You are stating you have been playing for a long time, but not been using capital ships, correct? Well try them out. You will see carriers and motherships are not 'I WIN' buttons, far far from it. Well actually... they are I WIN vs a BS just like a BS is I WIN vs a cruiser... The bigger better ship wins... i think thats normal right? Their's a good 1300 posts saying no to this nerf, at least 50% of them are constructive. Have fun reading them, I HAVE and it's clear this is a bad idea from CCP. This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Apocalytica Insomnia DarkSide Defenders	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:12:00 - [1279] Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia PS for the right bribe I can slap, kick or throw stuff at him because he sits right beside me First i was thinking about a stone, but then, the analogie would be ... unprudent. I rather lead by example and ask openly what type of bribe you'd concider for throwing blown up Carrier-wrecks at him, cause they could not effectively defend emselfes against 3 Neut-BS's, when beeing bumped in a staging system by said Neut-BS's before their Rescue Fleet could make it 8 Jumps. Apocalytica Insomnia DarkSide Defenders Accounting and More
Tzrailasa Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:12:00 - [1280] Edited by: Tzrailasa on 22/10/2007 11:12:13 Zulupark, before presenting solutions, please provide us with the problem.... Your 'solution' would make carriers/mommies useless in fleet battles, and you haven even told us aht the problem is. If the problems are some of the following, there are WAY better solutions..... Is the problem low-sec mommy gate campers? Easy, just prevent them from going there. Is the problem 'hot-drops'? Easy, make a 15 second delay on cynos, ie. they have to be up 15 seconds before they can be used. Is the problem blobbing? Sorry, but you created THIS problem yourselves! Shootable POS structures and station services ensured it. Add the fact that the ONLY counter to a blob is a bigger blob, and you have the mess that is fleet warfare now. Removing carriers from the game will not make this go away. Is the problem something else? Hey, I got an idea for you: TELL US! At BEST, I think you're trying to remove a symptom of what's wrong (you should be removing the problem instead). At worst, I think you haven't got a clue about 0.0 warfare.... What needs to be fixed are not carriers, which work reasonably well in fleet, but a LOT of other issues. Among these are: There is NO anti-blob measures in the game (and no, bombs are completely useless). This leads to the blob-lag mess of todays fleet/POS warfare, which again leads to the lag-hell we see all the time now. POS warfare has always been a mess, but you tripled that when you implemented shootable structures and station services. The theory 'give small gangs something to do' was nice, but this was totally forgotten in the implementation which more or less mandates 100+ gangs. Of.c. you can't scale down the HP's as this would make it too easy. Main advice for this one... ROLL IT BACK! Completely! Triage is useless. Any carrier who uses it in a fleet battle will be primaried and die! Remove the 'lock-in-place' part of it, and have triage mode as a simple removal of offensive weapons for an increase in logistics capability. Being locked in place without being able to be remote repaired totally kills this module. Bombs are useless. They're too short-ranged, too low damage and with too many restrictions to work. Especially in lagged out fights they're utterly useless, but wasn't this where they were intended to be used? The base of problems in 0.0 warfare is lag, and the cause of lag is blobbing. Blobbing is caused because it is required by many features that you've put in over the last couple of expansions, and is so easy to do since there are no countermeasures. What you need to do is fix lag first! Unless you have a magic technology wand somewhere, the only way you can do that is by nerfing blobbing in some way. How to do this is a good question, with the best idea I've seen on these forums being some kind of (suicide) smartbomb that becomes more effective (range/damage) the more people are on grid (and we're talking up to 150km range and kill-battleship damage here if numbers are 100-150 or whatever). AFTER lag is removed as a factor, THEN you can start on balancing stuff. Your idea may be fine in a lag-free environment, but in todays lag-blob-hell, the assignment of fighters would not work at all, and remote repping is not even an option for battleships and below (they're dead before you even get to START locking them up). My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance.

Vampir3 Un3xist	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:14:00 - [1281] Thanks CCP im currently skilling carrier now with this nerf carrier are useless I have wasted my time
Tzrailasa Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:16:00 - [1282] Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia .... and I am training up for capital ships.... So in essence, you're admitting you don't know BY EXPERIENCE what you're talking about??? This is the same complaint a lot of people here has about Zuluparks 'fix'. It simply doesn't make ANY sense to anyone who've tried to fight in the lagged out blob-hell that is todays 0.0 warfare experience. Carriers didn't make this blob-hell.... CCP did by their design decisions.... My views are my own. They do not represent the views of my corporation or alliance.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:17:00 - [1283] Edited by: Gamesguy on 22/10/2007 11:18:01 Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia Originally by: Sin mez Do you even play the game? And talking about bias like that when it's pretty obvious you're full of it is disgraceful. What are you thinking? Do you even understand your own playerbase, or for that matter your own game? If one would look at the dev comments without bias they would realize the devs have lost touch in a big way. with bias I mean that you need look further then your own win button, that now might become harder to click, we think it will do some good in general but if you disagree then explain why you think it will not meet our goals. That is constructive criticism. I was hired because Ive been playing for a long time and I am training up for captital ships, we all have here but sometimes you have to do things that even hurt your own win button if you believe it will benefit gameplay on a larger scale. I'm sure people argued the samething about battleships when most were flying cruisers. Oh noes, the battleship blob will be the end of eve. Battleships will be solo pwnmobiles, etc. How exactly do you propose carrier pilots accomplish this magical fighter delegation in today's environment of slideshow fleet engagements and extremely buggy fighter assignments? And this would basically mean no one will ever hot drop carriers ever again, since you get grid loading lag and by the time you load half your support is dead and you got no one left to assign to. While I'm sure all this plays out nice and dandy in your zero lag test server or zero lag small scale engagements. When you have a 100v100 what happens then?
Mr Funkadelic Tenacious Danes Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:18:00 - [1284] Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos?
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:18:00 - [1285] Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/10/2007 11:20:35 Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 22/10/2007 11:18:31 Originally by: Tzrailasa stuff Quote For Awesome Post. CCP: "Ugh, this shiptype is overused and becoming a large scale nuisance, let's nerf it to hell so less people use it". Why not just delete the skilltree and the ships entirely while you're at it and let those who trained the skills re-assign their SP? - Recruitment open again-
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:20:00 - [1286] Originally by: Mr Funkadelic Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos? Exactly, Thats like complaining your "conventional fleet" of t1 cruisers got "blobbed" by a fleet of hacs and command ships and promptly pwned. As for support, POS tend to make pretty good support when there is lag involved.
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:20:00 - [1287] Originally by: Mr Funkadelic Originally by: DeadDuck About 1 week ago we were hitting a pos with conventional fleet... a certain alliance cynoed in 6 Motherships and 26 carriers with minimal support... thats where the present status drove things in 0 space... Very nice indeed... we packed things and walk away, they packed things and walk away... lots of fun for bioth sides And they spent atleast 50 times the amount of isk on ther fleet than you did - Why should they not be sucessful in defending the pos? Way more than 50 times. But hey if they can't afford it, NERF IT!!! Damn noobs ruining this game... This sig demonstrate the problem is not drones or fighters but the amount of people show up to blobs and fleets.
Onnawa Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:21:00 - [1288] Edited by: Onnawa on 22/10/2007 11:22:00 Quote: On the contrary, 5 frigs will most likely get mashed by a domi. They'll not break it's tank and it's neuts and drones will massacre them one at a time. Should a domi be reduced to using 1 or 2 drones to give those poor frigs a chance? The simple fact is that pvp in eve in harsh and unfair. If I wanted nice fair fights i'd go play another game where you can't get ganked. You're a pirate Verone. Do you not shoot a hauler flying past you while you are in a BS, because it would be "unfair" and "not a fun fight" ??? He isn't saying that at all. What he's attempting to point out is the disparity between battleships and capitals. There's a huge power gap between the two classes. The jump between BS and Cap is the ONLY place in the ship chain where you can't solo the larger in the smaller if you have skill, innate ability, and testicular fortitude. It requires caps of your own, or a larger gang and a lot of time on your hands. While carriers don't have "Godly" firepower, it's a whole lot more than the vast majority of people are prepared to deal with in small-scale engagements. In that respect, it does solopwn, because a mixed gang of 5 or 6 can't kill fighters fast enough, and even if you manage to do so, he still has several hundred drones. You lose a whole flight because Johny Jerkoff has a fitted cyno. Try warping away from fighters sometime....you tacklers get out if you're lucky. I don't even bother anymore...I just ride it down and take as many fighters as I can with me. And as for your other comment, no. You kill what you can, because that's what you do. And if a hauler pilot gives you time to lock him when you're in a battleship, he deserves to die. And if you can't kill a domi with 5 frigates, you're flying with the wrong people. _____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania.
gesthapto lapenty	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:23:00 - [1289] Worst potential Nerf I have seen yet in game. This would send us back to Carriers sitting next to POSes and giving fighters to those at battle - making them almost impossible to kill. Getting carriers into frontline combat should be what you are looking at. Oh... and they should be "better at killing things than BS Ships" because they are carriers... and people have spent billions getting them trained and equipped. And the same for more than 5 fighters or drones... THEY ARE CARRIERS
Emsigma Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.22 11:24:00 - [1290] After reading 50 pages of stuff, I can still not see the incentive anyone would have for this patch to be introduced nor can I see how it would benefit... well... any gameplay at all. My biggest fear now is that the community is gonna accept the upcoming rework of a carrier/mom nerf and accept it just because it is relatively better than this creation from a friday afterwork joke. We must remember that when this suggestions gets an overhaul and a new version is presented, we must look at it from an unbiased position. ---



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 93 :: 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.