EVE Search - Boost Patch (upcoming trinity patch)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Boost Patch (upcoming trinity patch)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jeremiah Kane Demon Womb Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.12.24 07:03:00 - [91] Edited by: Jeremiah Kane on 24/12/2007 07:11:10 Edited by: Jeremiah Kane on 24/12/2007 07:07:51 Originally by: Sean Dillon I am so happy now I quit playing eve, all these changes espcially to the carriers is what made me quit eve. Need to quit posting too. I welcome most of these changes, some of them are simply reverting back to the way things used to be, which is welcome in most cases. Go listen to the actual blog yourselves, the OP here just whined about everything, as is usually the case with any thread these days. I am confused about the stacking of speed mods, I was sure there was already a penalty for stacking these mods...
Khamal Jolstien Caldari Lucky Hydra Corp SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.24 14:52:00 - [92] Just why, exactly, do they feel the need to add more scripts than what are currently around? I personally do not see anything fun coming out of them, and certainly nothing good. Is there any reason to believe that they are not just a favorite of someone on the dev team who feels the need to use it liberally? Please, end any thoughts on adding scripts, we honestly don't like them.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.12.24 19:17:00 - [93] Originally by: DHB WildCat T2 Battleships and Cap Ships they are too expensive. The patch will reduce cost of building these ships, so that they will become more affordable to the average player. stupidest idea ever - cant be serious Trashed sig, Shark was here
Commodore Andrews Golden Goose Inc	Posted - 2007.12.24 19:38:00 - [94] Carriers Will not be reduced to an only delegation ship. Meaning it will be able to launch all of its fighters as skills allow, not just assign them to gang mates. Triage Modules will be boosted. (No offense guys but remote repping is one of this games worst features). What does this mean in english? "Discussing moderation is a violation of the forum rules." <--- Ummmm I thought forums were BUILT for discussing?
devilator	Posted - 2007.12.24 19:42:00 - [95] what about a fix for the minerals...since the induction of the drone region prices have slid.. there has been no adjusting except in a downward paetten. And the new influx of ships didnt help the mineral market one bit. So how can this be fixed cut down on the amount of yield from the compounds. Miners cant keep up with people ratting in the drone regions. this is an old bug, yet with no fix. I know it is a player driven market but the demmand cannot keep pace with the supply. by no means should it go back to the old ways. but when u fill a cargohangar full of highend ore and only averages 210 million that pretty bad for a skill that took so long to train.
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.12.24 19:46:00 - [96] Edited by: Wrayeth on 24/12/2007 19:47:42 Originally by: Oku Kee'lus From the Live Blog: Quote: Mindstar: Alright, an another question that I just noticed. This is intresting one. Will active shield tanking ever be viable in PVP when medium slots are needed for critical modules such as speed, cap, electronic warfare, counter electronic warfare? Zulupark: I think active shield boosting is very viable in PVP. The question is "Is it viable in 1on1 PVP?" Where you have to have scrambler or webber or something. You can still fit active shield tank if you have just one buddy who is scrambling or tackling. Even on ships like the Raven or even the Maelstrom you can spare one slot for a scrambler. Unfortunately, when you fit a MWD on a torp raven and a number of other Caldari ships (HAM nighthawk, for instance), you lose the ability to fit a scrambler and still tank decently. Raven mids: XL C5-L (because it doesn't have the CPU to fit the tech II with a torp setup) 100MN MWD II or quad LiF 2 invuln field II 1 shield boost amp (copacetic...or tech II if you can sc***together the CPU for it) EDIT: WTF...it filtered s-c-r-a-p-e? 1 heavy cap injector II Unfortunately, none of those mods can be dispensed with. Lose any one of them and you'll either die horribly or be ineffective. Also please note the lack of a target painter. Quote:** Everyone, go read the Live Blog yourself. This has to be the most biased write-up in... well, forever. I wouldn't say it's the most biased, but it's damned close. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Crux Australis MotorSaikol LadrUNZ	Posted - 2007.12.24 20:01:00 - [97] Originally by: DHB WildCat Amarr Boost is not going to happen get over it. It is the most intensive skill based faction, but once you get there.... oh man they rock. eh ? Originally by: Mynas Atoch The contract with BOB over Period Basis served us no further, so we tore it up and binned it.
memphistopheles interimo The Crimson Federation	Posted - 2007.12.24 20:07:00 - [98] Idiots, stop screwing with gameplay and just fix all the damn bugs in this awful game.
Mourn Navarre Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.12.24 20:19:00 - [99] Edited by: Mourn Navarre on 24/12/2007 20:23:24 Originally by: DHB WildCat T2 Battleships and Cap Ships they are too expensive. The patch will reduce cost of building these ships, so that they will become more affordable to the average player. Only thing I don't like the sound of. I'd rather they stay as they are and everything else go up in price too. Make it mean something again when you lose even a cruiser. Too many gank gatecamps and such. And to train for as long as it takes to fly capital ships and have them be really cheap just feels idiotic to me. My former main character had that trained. For the amount of time you spend in them, it just isn't worth the time. Change the way POSs and sovereignity works and then it won't matter. Edit: It also seems a tad backwards to admit to wanting to promote small gang warfare but also want to make big, expensive ships cheaper.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.24 20:48:00 - [100] Originally by: Jonny JoJo I REPEAT - NANO's have nothing to do with Blobs They're the only way to save yourself when someone brings along 10 BS to play. You need to be able to get away - and, basically, going 1.6-2km/s does it just fine; speeds at which all turrets can track very well. In fact, even Amarr medium turrets will track all but the extremely fast ships - Gallente are definitely way way worse off then Amarr due to no range at all. The fact is you don't want to use either webs or MWDs. You probably like using them for cap mods or something - well, this is your choice. Now, having scram range webs means that the five or ten man BS gang is the ideal 5 to ten men gang in EvE, and that's the last thing we need. I understand that it's more risky to fly a BS; but face it, a BS does over a couple of times more damage, has times and times more buffer, can actually tank in some cases, have better range and can use heavy neuts/etc, and on top of things are cheaper then nanoships. Do you think with all that perks over a nano-ship it'd be justified if their 'risk' was anywhere close to flying a nanoship? Furthermore, the only thing making 'crazy' speeds possible on ships not really intended to have them are snake implants. Which are faction gear and preety much ownage; however, Domination webs are also faction gear and preety much ownage as well. So there. Rifters!

Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.12.24 20:50:00 - [101] Originally by: Wrayeth Unfortunately, when you fit a MWD on a torp raven and a number of other Caldari ships (HAM nighthawk, for instance), you lose the ability to fit a scrambler and still tank decently. How about shield-tanked Minmatar ships; ever tried to fit a tank on them plus MWD + scram (not to even talk about webs). They're typically got even less midslots to play with and I don't hear massive whinage about them being ineffective; in fact, I personally use a Cyclone which is preety damn effective and has five (5) mids. Rifters!
SiJira	Posted - 2007.12.24 22:08:00 - [102] Edited by: SiJira on 24/12/2007 22:08:05 Originally by: Mourn Navarre It also seems a tad backwards to admit to wanting to promote small gang warfare but also want to make big, expensive ships cheaper. fully agreed its not like if prices go up everyone goes broke since every price that goes up also boosts most incomes even pvp if you loot your victims Trashed sig, Shark was here
Max Godsnottlingson Amarr Freelancing Corp Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.12.24 23:12:00 - [103] Edited by: Max Godsnottlingson on 24/12/2007 23:13:50 Originally by: Gamer4liff Edited by: Gamer4liff on 21/12/2007 20:32:16 Originally by: DHB WildCat T2 Battleships and Cap Ships they are too expensive. The patch will reduce cost of building these ships, so that they will become more affordable to the average player. lame. To extend: the "Average" player has no business flying carriers or T2 battleships. You know, I agree with this. The reply that is. It is Lame. I'm working hard towards a Paladin, got about six weeks learning left and some hard ratting to be able to afford one, and it's fittings. I remember when Battleships first came into Eve, and CCP saw them as being rare items, needing a major effort to build. But they overlooked the player base, and now just about anybody can knock one out. We need rarer ships that need some working towards. Yes I am having to work to get my Paladin. Yes, I will be gutted if I loose it. However, with my current character, of some 18 months, it's a worth while target to aim for. We need more of this, not quick fixes for players who don't want to put the effort in to flying one.
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2007.12.24 23:42:00 - [104] Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson We need more of this, not quick fixes for players who don't want to put the effort in to flying one. QFT - Odd Pod Out, a blog of EVE Online
Korask	Posted - 2007.12.25 01:46:00 - [105] Edited by: Korask on 25/12/2007 01:47:50 Originally by: Cpt Branko How about shield-tanked Minmatar ships; ever tried to fit a tank on them plus MWD + scram (not to even talk about webs). They're typically got even less midslots to play with and I don't hear massive whinage about them being ineffective; in fact, I personally use a Cyclone which is preety damn effective and has five (5) mids. The difference is that the Minmatar shield tankers all have shield boost bonuses, thus allowing them to dispense with the boost amp. The raven has the same number of slots, but must fit a boost amp, too, thus preventing is from ever running a scrambler. As for the nighthawk, it does have a built-in invulnerability field, but only runs a large shield booster (in contrast to the sleipnir, which has both a shield boost bonus and can run an XL booster). With four of its midslots taken up by the following setup, the fifth really needs to have either a boost amp or a second invulnerability field: Large shield booster (tech II or faction) 10MN MWD (named or tech II) medium cap injector (named or tech II) 1 invulnerability field II 1 remaining slot These are just two examples of the Caldari shield tankers' inability to fit a shield tank, MWD, and tackle at the same time.
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.12.25 01:47:00 - [106] Originally by: Korask Stuff This was me. I mis-clicked while trying to select the character. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: 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.