|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
   |
Posted - 2012.02.28 21:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
Yeah I was reading the thread on the HA forums. It'd probably work. Not really my cup of tea but its certainly viable.
PL seems to be rolling with them in large numbers.
You beat me to it. |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I'm not sure why you guys feel it invalidates my assertion that its viable but not my cup of tea.
/shrug
-Liang I don't feel that it invalidates anything you said.  I just posted it because I saw that they were using them... Did you think I was trying to pick some sort of fight? Not until Cambarus posted. ;-) -Liang
It's true, I do enjoy disagreeing with Liang  Great way to kill some time and there are few people on the forums as anal in their replies as I am ^_^
That said, I should point out that I was referring moreso to the PL reference than the liang quote in it, the quote that it ACTUALLY invalidates is this one:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The problem with the Naga is its so damn slow and the problem with the Oracle is that 4 mids is absolutely mandatory in this ship class: MWD, LSE, Disruptor, Web.
-Liang
The oracle is used with more than reasonable success despite being a 3 med ship, meaning your assertion that 4 mids is absolutely mandatory in this ship class is provably false. |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote:It's true, I do enjoy disagreeing with Liang Great way to kill some time and there are few people on the forums as anal in their replies as I am ^_^ That said, I should point out that I was referring moreso to the PL reference than the liang quote in it, the quote that it ACTUALLY invalidates is this one: Liang Nuren wrote:
The problem with the Naga is its so damn slow and the problem with the Oracle is that 4 mids is absolutely mandatory in this ship class: MWD, LSE, Disruptor, Web.
-Liang
The oracle is used with more than reasonable success despite being a 3 med ship, meaning your assertion that 4 mids is absolutely mandatory in this ship class is provably false. I wasn't aware that PL fought in less than 500 man gangs with 200 supers on standby? -Liang
I wasn't aware that mandatory and mandatory in small gang lowsec pvp were one in the same? |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.28 23:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote:
I wasn't aware that mandatory and mandatory in small gang lowsec pvp were one in the same?
Then maybe you should read the ******* post in question. Afterall, it says " for my purposes" quite clearly in it.  -Liang
I'd really rather not argue semantics, but your post mentions your own purposes in a separate paragraph from the quote in question, and you said "The problem with..." instead of "My problem with..." and "mandatory in this ship class" rather than "mandatory for small gangs" or something to that effect. You implied that the statement was aimed at the ships as a whole, rather than your style of pvp. |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 00:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
Yes, you do want to argue semantics.
OK you got me there
Liang Nuren wrote:
The post was self explanatory to any competent reader of English, and now you're just arguing on a fringe interpretation just so you can continue a ridiculous attack.
It was at best ambiguous, and this fringe interpretation you're referring to is more commonly known as proper grammar. It's rare, but I stand by it.
 7
Liang Nuren wrote:
****.
Off.
-Liang
Hugs and kisses <3
-Camb. |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 04:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:- Why do you feel that I'm angry? i too, lace my posting with profanity when im not, in fact, angry
For the record I also enjoyed the m8 and poaster being used in the same reply as the words "persisted in arguing linguistic semantics"
Also for the record I've been posting like this for well over a year, but it wasn't until we butted heads over whether or not logis should get agression timers (to make a long story short, one of us mostly flies them on lowsec gates and thinks adding aggro timers would nerf them into the ground, and the other one is sane) that he took note of my posts. |
Cambarus
Baros Reloaded
126
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 01:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
The 200km figure was based on the paper sniper setups PL have been fielding, though tbh it should have occurred to me that most people like to fit some sort of tank to their ships 
That said, a naga with 3 MFS does less DPS than an oracle with 3 heat sinks, and the oracle can push its optimal out to 180+ (with nearly 50km falloff) using the PL fit and aurora. The end result is that the oracle ODs the naga out to about 200km (the edge of its lock range) and the only way for the naga to get the same DPS as an oracle with aurora is to use navy lead, bringing its optimal down to about 150+60 (and even then, it's a tiny bit less DPS),
Mind you now that I look at it more closely it seems that there really isn't that much of a difference to begin with, even their speeds and align times are close, maybe THAT's why so few people are complaining about the balance of these ships (aside from the airheads who honestly think a torp naga would be anything other than useless) |
|
|
| |
|