|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vandalias
   |
Posted - 2007.10.21 19:26:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Vandalias on 21/10/2007 19:25:47
 Originally by: Je'hira Osiris
This is just bang out of order TBH... WTF!! is the point of spending Billoins on any type or carrier spending years training, running multiple accounts for some twerp at CCP to decide you dont get to play with what you have worked for.... SO mothership can kill 100's of bs's gess what they are worth 100's of bs's... CCP you seem to be ****ting on players that are keeping you in bread and water... do you want to go back to working for free??
Quit trying to balance based on ship price.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 21:54:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Vandalias on 21/10/2007 21:56:05
Originally by: Gyle
Its not about price its about class of vessle and wiping one 2 off the fface of the planet. since you dont fly em you therefor dont know much about them you shouldnt be commenting.
Also quit with this "you don't fly them so stfu" stuff as well... not only is it a big assumption on your part, but its pretty irrelevant to the argument.
Carriers don't need 20 drones to kill a BS. They don't need 20 fighters to kill a BS. A carrier will beat a BS quite handily with 5 drones/fighters, granted it will take longer but the carrier will still win in the end. Its pretty obvious that CCP doesn't want them to be solo ships so its pretty useless to argue that they won't be able to solo properly after the change... that seems to be the entire point. Fly with support or fly something else.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 22:11:00 -
[3]
Originally by: DarkFollower
So what u are saying is that if a bs 1vs1 a carrier the bs should have a very nice change to kill it right ? very nice thinking there
what would that make the bs? next thing to nerf?
Ohh and btw and this talk about the carrier being able to kill the bs with 5 is if the bs just stays there or is afk , please can u elaborate how it works? or else my bs is just that awsome
Huh? I'm saying that carriers are still superior to BS even after the change.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.21 23:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: DarkFollower
What i was saying is that with 5 fighters the carrier/mom(!) will have a hard time killing the bs, even not killing it at all most of the time if the bs is tanked , the bs wont be able to take down the carrier ofc unless the carrier is poorly fited
What i'm trying to say it's that the carrier will be alot more closer to a bs capabilities ,actually if u take the tank away it's basicaly close to a 1 bil dominix with 20 mil drones ,i don't find that very normal for a capital ship do you?
And what about the mothership what good will that be?
I don't like solo pwnmobiles either , and i don't even fly the things and i'm not training for one but don't u find it a little bit too much of a nerf? and to a ship that already dies alot to roaming gangs due lack of support, support that the ships already needs alot if they plan of not going boom
Well considering carriers are much more logistics ships than anything I don't see an issue. Yes, they won't be owning fleets of ships, but they weren't designed to do that. CCP is forcing them back into the logistics role and making them fly with support.
Carriers/Moms will still be very useful in keeping your own fleet alive through remote repping, getting people into the fight quicker or back into the fight after losing a ship, etc... They aren't meant to be solo combat ships, but that doesn't mean they are useless unless you consider OMGDPS!!@@! to be the only thing that matters in eve.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 01:37:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Icome4u
They are here to ADD dps not to solowtfpwn. So far they DON'T solowtfpwn
And they will still add the same amount of DPS to a fight... they just won't do it on their own. Fly with support and nothing really changes.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.22 07:34:00 -
[6]
Originally by: lor'cal
And by the way, "Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend, if you are already fly with support, then little changes." Should be:"Secondly, my grammatically challenged friend. If you are already flying with support, then little changes."
I hate idiots that try to correct someone else, when they are also wrong.
LOL
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gyle
I made the assumption on a very clear point. You are defneding the prospect of this nerf. This in itself proves my point and the fact that you havent tried tell us different proves it even further. At the end of the day most of the people who are commenting in all these threads have long term experiance with carriers and or motherships themsleves. Hence the outrage at this whole prospect as these are the people that it affects and also know what they are talking about.
In one of the other posts one of he devs asks people to stop being biased. And yet the only people that are defending this are people that havent showed the commitemnt or loyalty to ccp to actualy atain these ships. Thes are the "real" biased players. They are the ones rubbing their hands together saying.
"HAHA, now no-one will have a larger ship then me"
BTW many BS setup right can tank ten fighters from a thanatos. Proving a carrier will now be defenceless. do a bit more homework before posting next time bro...
Very good example of a situational ad hominem. Basically you are saying I don't fly carriers therefore I am for the changes purely for that reason and my thoughts on the matter are therefore invalid, likewise it could be said that you fly carriers therefore you are against the changes purely for that reason and your thoughts on the matter are equally invalid.
Well both of those statements are invalid arguments. You/my particular situation is irrelevant to the discussion. Argue the points made, not the person making the points.
|
Vandalias
|
Posted - 2007.10.23 05:35:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gyle
I, like everyone else posting in these threads, have made copius arguments why this should not happen. The fact that everyone else is in aggreement with me is a point in itself.
But there is another simple factor. The ludicrous proposal itself. Just by stating that you are for it proves you dont know what your talking about. If you had any significant pvp or logistical experience with carriers then you quiet simply wouldnt be for these proposals. QED
I know you will find this hard to understand but im affraid it will just validate my points further
Not a terribly convincing point though.
Well, for one, I don't believe I have ever stated that I am for this change (feel free to prove me wrong), but even if I had your conclusion does not logically follow. One could have plenty of experience with carrier ships and still support the proposed changes for a variety of reasos. Your personal opinions of the change are not necessarily fact and your personal opinions of what others should believe are not necessarily correct.
|
|
|
| |
|