Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 73 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
OrlDragon
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 14:57:00 -
[61]
against
|
Dr Nott
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:00:00 -
[62]
very much against
|
Kalintos Tyl
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:01:00 -
[63]
|
The Ice
Caldari The All-Seeing Eye G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:04:00 -
[64]
I want to unistal EVE..:)
So pls pls pls do it..:)And we close the corp sell the charachters items whatever
Do it..:)
WTB ICE again..:)finally..:) --
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Saint |
Suboran
Gallente Victory Not Vengeance Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:05:00 -
[65]
signed, another great example of ccp looking for an overhanded fix instead of adjusting the cause.
ccp, ask yourself this:
WHY do people fly nano ships?
|
Varus Riaz
Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:14:00 -
[66]
Against, as this pushes the game even more into a numbers game that it already can't support
|
Dendo Ordoss
Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:25:00 -
[67]
/signed.
It feels like ccp are nerfing small scale combat more and more for every patch just so that larger alliances can protect their space even more effectivly.
|
scorp3
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:28:00 -
[68]
signed
|
XFurion
Divine Power R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:30:00 -
[69]
balance speed eh? more like remove nano fits from the game. i really hope this doesn't go ahead. i agree some things need ot be looked at but the proposals go too far.
|
Gajowy
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:31:00 -
[70]
signed
|
|
Gnomes
Caldari Xenobytes Stain Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:39:00 -
[71]
AGAINST
|
Jagerin
Surreal corp Stain Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:42:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Jagerin on 26/07/2008 15:42:19 /me against Remember about nano-HAC prices, mkay?
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:42:00 -
[73]
I am against the nerf in it's current form as detailed in the Dev blog.
I think it can be done less intrusive and less damaging. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Ian Murchison
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:47:00 -
[74]
against. maybe the time spent thinking up those stupid ideas could have been spent thinking of ways to reduce lag in large scale pvp?
|
Spargella
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:48:00 -
[75]
against
|
Dzajic
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:50:00 -
[76]
I fully support that only viable setups for HACs and CSs, even for those of them that are not made to be speedtanked, being a speed setup, should be nerfed. And that ships larger than frigates (and frigs T2 cousins) should never reach speeds at which they can avoid 99.99% of all incoming damage and completely break the "commit to pvp" idea of EVE by being able to disengage at will.
However, CCPs proposed fix WILL break to many things, all at once. They should at most add/fix/tweak stacking penalties for polycarbons, nerf snakes a bit NOT halve them, and SHOULD rework ship base speeds/masses/agilities.
So. CCPs proposal in full. Not supported.
|
eXeGee
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:51:00 -
[77]
well... i'm not quite against speed nerf, but i'm for sure AGAINST making 2in1 scrambler module (make a new one if you rly have to block mwd) and web nerf (nerfing nano counter module sux?) - it wont affect nano it will affect all kinds of warfare prolly making disbalance
|
Kor'El Swiftpaws
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:51:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Kor''El Swiftpaws on 26/07/2008 15:52:05 AGAINST the nerf the way they are trying to do it.
FOR the gradual rebalancing of ship velocities and speed module bonii.
|
Pistaches
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:51:00 -
[79]
Against for nano nerf.
|
Tyffanny
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:52:00 -
[80]
Against for nano nerf too...
|
|
Mad Shade
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:59:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Mad Shade on 26/07/2008 16:00:23
Originally by: eXeGee well... i'm not quite against speed nerf, but i'm for sure AGAINST making 2in1 scrambler module (make a new one if you rly have to block mwd) and web nerf (nerfing nano counter module sux?) - it wont affect nano it will affect all kinds of warfare prolly making disbalance
On the other hand, web nerf is suggest because webs are considered uber mods, and at the same time we should get a new 2 in 1 kinda uber mod.
It is ridiculous! And i strongly agree that this only cause more disbalance.
Edit: yes, against :)
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:59:00 -
[82]
for
|
MadMax RuS
The First Foundation Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 15:59:00 -
[83]
nerf it! viva la CCP
|
dapman
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:02:00 -
[84]
Against!!!
|
ZIgi507
SoT
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:05:00 -
[85]
Quote: This is not a "balancing", it is a complete removal of speed as a tactic at all in this game. Maybe poly rigs need to be brought in line with their T2 counterparts, but instead of actually nerfing the specific problem, the suggested "fix" blatantly nerfs every possible aspect of speed, which is rediculous.
qft
Against
|
Wesley Baird
BURN EDEN Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:08:00 -
[86]
Against! My corp will get a tonne more kills if the nerf goes as planned...but it benefits the large blobs far too much.
|
Tobruk
Black Omega Security
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:20:00 -
[87]
hey guys they spent 5 hours talking about it - i mean 5 hours ----------------------------------------------
Sig removed. Elmo Pug removed my sig because he hates me
|
Terrytory
Solar Dragons SOLAR FLEET
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:25:00 -
[88]
singed
|
Devil Digger
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:25:00 -
[89]
/against
|
Shadowbee
|
Posted - 2008.07.26 16:33:00 -
[90]
AGAINST
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 73 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |