EVE Search - Motherships

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Motherships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ivor Gunn No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:29:00 - [1] Are broken.
flashfreaking LFC	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:30:00 - [2] 1) No Killboard links 2) Why 3) IBTL 4) Fail 5) Your stuff, can I have it? Disallowed sig graphic. Send an e-mail to [email protected] when it meets the forum signature guidelines. ~Saint
Sean Dillon Caldari Metafarmers	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:32:00 - [3] Looking at the fit he didnt deserve that carrier anyway.
Whip Slagcheek	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:35:00 - [4] paper tiger amirite?
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:39:00 - [5] Err what? You think 12 carriers wouldnt've killed that carrier?
flashfreaking LFC	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:39:00 - [6] BTW: I hope those 2 ppl are your mains. Because I'm already laughing with that tought, now please confirm it, and make my day Disallowed sig graphic. Send an e-mail to [email protected] when it meets the forum signature guidelines. ~Saint
Ivor Gunn No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:41:00 - [7] Edited by: Ivor Gunn on 03/03/2008 22:41:21 Originally by: Gamesguy Err what? You think 12 carriers wouldnt've killed that carrier? That's not the point. No entity in the game should be able to field that many motherships with the kind of support it had. TBFH, bring back zulupark's proposed fighter changes. Originally by: flashfreaking BTW: I hope those 2 ppl are your mains. Because I'm already laughing with that tought, now please confirm it, and make my day This is my main character. I have at no time had a character in r0adkill or any of its affiliated alliances. k?
Whip Slagcheek	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:42:00 - [8] Originally by: Ivor Gunn Originally by: Gamesguy Err what? You think 12 carriers wouldnt've killed that carrier? That's not the point. No entity in the game should be able to field that many motherships with the kind of support it had. TBFH, bring back zulupark's proposed fighter changes. So CCP builds a sandbox game and you want them to say, "No no kids, you can't build sand castles that high." What do you want them to do? Put a hard cap on ship types? Sorry, no more motherships to be built, there are already 10 in the game.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:43:00 - [9] Originally by: Ivor Gunn Edited by: Ivor Gunn on 03/03/2008 22:41:21 Originally by: Gamesguy Err what? You think 12 carriers wouldnt've killed that carrier? That's not the point. No entity in the game should be able to field that many motherships with the kind of support it had. TBFH, bring back zulupark's proposed fighter changes. Are you blind? The motherships had like a 60 man support fleet. Originally by: flashfreaking This is my main character. I have at no time had a character in r0adkill or any of its affiliated alliances. k? Yes a 10 day old character claiming to be a main.
Ivor Gunn No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:45:00 - [10] Originally by: Gamesguy Are you blind? The motherships had like a 60 man support fleet. That... was my point. Quote: Yes a 10 day old character claiming to be a main. What ***** are you smoking darling? This character's 6 months old.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:48:00 - [11] Edited by: Gamesguy on 03/03/2008 22:53:49 Originally by: Ivor Gunn That... was my point. What is your point? Mind stating it directly? Quote: What ***** are you smoking darling? This character's a year and 6 months old. Well I'm at school and I can't check in game, thought you were one of those alt trolls. I apologize.
Ivor Gunn No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:50:00 - [12] Originally by: Gamesguy What is your point? Mind stating it directly? Would you deploy a mothership with 5 support ships? Would you deploy 12 motherships independently with 6 support ships each? Obviously, the answer is no. We've reached the point where supercaps are becoming the support class for other supercaps. This is what Zulupark wanted to try and fix with his now-abandoned changes to fighter mechanics. I'm saying we shouldn't dismiss the concept of those mechanics in a fit of nerdrage again, and perhaps they should be reconsidered.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:53:00 - [13] Originally by: Ivor Gunn Originally by: Gamesguy What is your point? Mind stating it directly? Would you deploy a mothership with 5 support ships? Would you deploy 12 motherships independently with 6 support ships each? Obviously, the answer is no. It doesn't scale like that. Its not "5 suppport ships per MS". For example we don't typically deploy capitals till we have at least 30-40 support. But once we have a certain number of support, you can deploy a relatively large number of capitals. You don't divide the support per capital... Quote: We've reached the point where supercaps are becoming the support class for other supercaps. This is what Zulupark wanted to try and fix with his now-abandoned changes to fighter mechanics. I'm saying we shouldn't dismiss the concept of those mechanics in a fit of nerdrage again, and perhaps they should be reconsidered. 60 support ships isnt support? What are you smoking?
flashfreaking LFC	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:54:00 - [14] Hey look, it's a troll who doesn't know what he is talking about. Never read about the comedy deaths of other MS'es ingame. Did it ever occur to you that these kills might have been the consequence of carefull planning and good FC'ing on the Tri part, and generally being stupid/bad on the Roadkill guys (no offence)... Disallowed sig graphic. Send an e-mail to [email protected] when it meets the forum signature guidelines. ~Saint
Whip Slagcheek	Posted - 2008.03.03 22:58:00 - [15] Personally I think battleships are overpowered. At one time there were hardly any of them so balance wasn't really a problem. Now that the economy has progressed, it seems like everyone and their brother has a battleship. It's especially bad when enemy fleets use battleships together in groups. They can spam a ton of drones and their combined firepower really adds up. Not to mention the additional tanking abilities a gang of those ships can do with "spider tanking." What we need is some kind of nerf to battleships. Maybe CCP should limit the number of battleships that can be fielded. Or limit their abilities somehow, perhaps only half their turrets can be fired at a time.
Roxanna Kell FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.03 23:12:00 - [16] 12 Mother ships, so what 300 bills? Beats 2 bil carrier? = Nurf Motherships? I am confused. What is broken? Get 12 titans. Quote: You are what you are, fool
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.03.03 23:24:00 - [17] Have they fixed the bug which caused fighter-bombers to show up on killmails as the carrier they were supporting? My assumption is that they haven't, in which case you were probably only seeing 2-4 motherships supplying fighters to 12 fighter-bombers. I could be wrong... -- Becq Starforged proprietor of Starforge Industries, a subsidiary of Minmatar Ship Construction Services At Starforge Industries, the world of tomorrow is being blown apart today!
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.03.03 23:32:00 - [18] Related kills FTW 89 Triumvirate ships (9 Nyx, 2 Wyvern, 1 Aeon, 1 Thanatos, loads of support of various sizes) vs 44 ROADKILL/SMASH ships (1 Chimera, 1 Thanatos, smaller support around). The two caps RK/S fielded died, alongside several others. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that picture, other than the fact Triumvirate has a HUGE number of motherships in the field (and a lot of other ships too). 1\|2\|3\|4\|5.
Whip Slagcheek	Posted - 2008.03.03 23:42:00 - [19] Originally by: Akita T Related kills FTW 89 Triumvirate ships (9 Nyx, 2 Wyvern, 1 Aeon, 1 Thanatos, loads of support of various sizes) vs 44 ROADKILL/SMASH ships (1 Chimera, 1 Thanatos, smaller support around). The two caps RK/S fielded died, alongside several others. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that picture, other than the fact Triumvirate has a HUGE number of motherships in the field (and a lot of other ships too). Ahh the picture becomes clearer. Not nerf moms, NERF TRI!! Tri, your epeen, too beaucoup!
The TX	Posted - 2008.03.04 01:19:00 - [20] FIXED: Originally by: flashfreaking 5) Your stuff, I can haz it?
djkdhsefkdj	Posted - 2008.03.04 02:21:00 - [21] Originally by: Becq Starforged Have they fixed the bug which caused fighter-bombers to show up on killmails as the carrier they were supporting? My assumption is that they haven't, in which case you were probably only seeing 2-4 motherships supplying fighters to 12 fighter-bombers. I could be wrong... All of those ships are moms, no bug. Tri has about 20 motherships ( thats seen action anyways )
Aurix Lexico Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.03.04 02:33:00 - [22] Why no love for the hel
Your Fleetcommander	Posted - 2008.03.04 03:02:00 - [23] Sweet, TRI is actually dropping moms again notifies Russian overlords
Yon89	Posted - 2008.03.04 03:06:00 - [24] capitals are cool ============= SIG SIG SIG

Pages: [1] :: 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.