|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 15:36:00 -
[1]
To use CCP terms this change is Ludicrous. Its a massive nerf to small gang pvp, especially in 0.0. And it will completely destroy whats left of the blasterships. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 15:36:00 -
[2]
To use CCP terms this change is Ludicrous. Its a massive nerf to small gang pvp, especially in 0.0. And it will completely destroy whats left of the blasterships. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:03:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Esmenet on 01/08/2008 17:02:58
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon
But too, you if you are adapting, then everything is fine. Just quit whining.
You can adapt by parking your HAC's and blasterboats and training Amarr or Caldari BS, but you cant adapt a BS to work in a small roaming gang in 0.0. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:03:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Esmenet on 01/08/2008 17:02:58
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon
But too, you if you are adapting, then everything is fine. Just quit whining.
You can adapt by parking your HAC's and blasterboats and training Amarr or Caldari BS, but you cant adapt a BS to work in a small roaming gang in 0.0. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 01:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Thorradin
Originally by: Esmenet To use CCP terms this change is Ludicrous. Its a massive nerf to small gang pvp, especially in 0.0. And it will completely destroy whats left of the blasterships.
You do recall posts like yours, that just complain but give no worthwhile substance, are likely being page down'd over right?
A bunch of people saying over and over 'omg this is bad ur killin eve' without solid reasons why are just wasting time, just like those supporting it saying 'omg yay eve pvp r fixd' aren't helping.
The AF thread I read alittle early actually showed a nice effect that seems to be happening with this (AFs no longer nearly worthless despite only having 3 bonuses).
Its pretty obvious for anyone thats actually lived in 0.0.
But wohooo AF's will be slightly more useful while hac's, intys and blasterships are firmly stuck in the pile of useless junk. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 01:35:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Thorradin
Originally by: Esmenet To use CCP terms this change is Ludicrous. Its a massive nerf to small gang pvp, especially in 0.0. And it will completely destroy whats left of the blasterships.
You do recall posts like yours, that just complain but give no worthwhile substance, are likely being page down'd over right?
A bunch of people saying over and over 'omg this is bad ur killin eve' without solid reasons why are just wasting time, just like those supporting it saying 'omg yay eve pvp r fixd' aren't helping.
The AF thread I read alittle early actually showed a nice effect that seems to be happening with this (AFs no longer nearly worthless despite only having 3 bonuses).
Its pretty obvious for anyone thats actually lived in 0.0.
But wohooo AF's will be slightly more useful while hac's, intys and blasterships are firmly stuck in the pile of useless junk. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 15:26:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Hoshino Rika
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
The vaga should max out at around 7kms the others at around 5kms at least or you may as well scrap the entire line of HAC's. And playing with the name to justify reducing them to utter worthlessness is just pathetic btw.
and ypou cant fit other than nano? like use the T2 resistances the HACs have and fit ythem for tank? or use damage bonuses and fit for gank? well fitet HAC is realy powerfull ship, not only with nano >_>
BC's or BS's do that much better for a fraction of the cost. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 15:26:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Hoshino Rika
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
The vaga should max out at around 7kms the others at around 5kms at least or you may as well scrap the entire line of HAC's. And playing with the name to justify reducing them to utter worthlessness is just pathetic btw.
and ypou cant fit other than nano? like use the T2 resistances the HACs have and fit ythem for tank? or use damage bonuses and fit for gank? well fitet HAC is realy powerfull ship, not only with nano >_>
BC's or BS's do that much better for a fraction of the cost. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 17:14:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Red Thunder Also i can see what he means, small alliances who live in npc regions etc will die since the enemy can just blob them all the time
If someone really wanted to they could do that now too. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 17:14:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Esmenet on 03/08/2008 17:22:45
Originally by: Red Thunder Also i can see what he means, small alliances who live in npc regions etc will die since the enemy can just blob them all the time
If someone really wanted to they could do that now too.
The question is if the small alliances will have any real fun after speed is nerfed. Vote against the nano nerf! |
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: SlothLoveChunk
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 06/08/2008 00:14:50
Originally by: Commander Shag
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Battle clinic is about as accurate as it gets bud not 100% but close enough to get a very good idea.
How close is that?...by all means post the hundreds that are missing and prove me wrong.
Battleclinic is not even close.
Don't care about your convo, just saying.
30% of your kills at least shows you have killed stuff and while its not totally accurate or impressive figures on either, as i already mentioned its a good guide to see if ppl actually pvp or not as less than 40 kills in 4 years is a good indication that somebody does not tbh.
Although i do agree that your figures are the most extreme ive ever seen as far as discrepancies on battle clinic is concerned, maybe its cos most of your kills were this year or summat else as some are posted but others are not.
I'll let you in on a little secret here. Nobody uses battleclinic.
Corps use their own killboards most of the time.
Another little secret: Battleclinic gets killmails from a lot of other killboards. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:44:00 -
[12]
Originally by: SlothLoveChunk
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 06/08/2008 00:14:50
Originally by: Commander Shag
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Battle clinic is about as accurate as it gets bud not 100% but close enough to get a very good idea.
How close is that?...by all means post the hundreds that are missing and prove me wrong.
Battleclinic is not even close.
Don't care about your convo, just saying.
30% of your kills at least shows you have killed stuff and while its not totally accurate or impressive figures on either, as i already mentioned its a good guide to see if ppl actually pvp or not as less than 40 kills in 4 years is a good indication that somebody does not tbh.
Although i do agree that your figures are the most extreme ive ever seen as far as discrepancies on battle clinic is concerned, maybe its cos most of your kills were this year or summat else as some are posted but others are not.
I'll let you in on a little secret here. Nobody uses battleclinic.
Corps use their own killboards most of the time.
Another little secret: Battleclinic gets killmails from a lot of other killboards. Vote against the nano nerf! |
|
|
|