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 80 .. 88 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 19:38:00 -
[1801]
Edited by: Kerfira on 07/08/2008 19:45:20 (removed two relative redundant replies in the middle)...
Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul 2) MWD is now worthless as anyone and their mother will fit scramblers, or will have tacklers with scramblers with them. You have not made AB a viable option. You made AB the new MWD.
If you're warp scrambled in a cruiser or larger, and you want to get away, no matter whether you got MWD or not, you're 95% certainly dead anyway. Doesn't matter whether it is 1 or 2 points or whether it turns your MWD off.
If you fit the MWD instead of an AB, you can still burn out of bubbles. Thus all in all, MWD's are still the best choice for larger ships IMHO.
You're missing the point. We're not talking about running away. We're talking about getting close to your target and/or keeping range. A thorax with 900m optimal for example will never get in range as soon as it's scrambled. So although the ship has a mwd bonus you're better off with AB since that way you may actualy have a fighting chance once you're scrambled. This is also tied with blasters and their very short range but even medium range guns on cruisers will have issues. Of course missile users are unaffected and mwd would be viable for them yes.
Your argument was that MWD's are useless. Blanket judgment, no qualifications of any kind...
Our points of view are somewhat different. I see things from the fleet perspective where I always fit long range weapons for cruiser sized and up (I fly Amarr/Gallente), and the use for the MWD is not to close with the enemy, but either keep them at range or to get out of bubbles. In that case the MWD is clearly superior to the AB, no matter the new scrambler.
So let's rejoice that CCP has actually found a differentiator for the speed modules! You'll use AB's for close-combat ships, and I'll use MWD for my long-range ships!
This is turning out to be an even better patch than I thought at first. Not only is speed being rebalanced! No, the scrambler and AB are also being given a purpose again! Nice!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Barsexual
Castle Greyskull
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 19:55:00 -
[1802]
Edited by: Barsexual on 07/08/2008 19:54:49 on the first days after this patch there were a lot of HACs flying around in the FFAs. a few days later it's all about sniping bs and tanked battleships. guess what tranq is going to be like
|
SuiJuris
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:03:00 -
[1803]
Edited by: SuiJuris on 07/08/2008 20:04:01
Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul
Originally by: SuiJuris Edited by: SuiJuris on 07/08/2008 16:47:50 Edited by: SuiJuris on 07/08/2008 16:47:35
Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul
Wrong. They were not outdamaged or outtanked. The damage is decent on proper nanogang setups and they were speed tanked which was on par to shield and armor tanking. Now the damage is decent, without any tank. PLUS they lost the ability to pull at least some of them out.
Um except that speed tanking was well light years better then Armor or shield tanking.
No it wasn't. Webber, Cap warfare... armor is more sturdy and only succeptible to cap warfare. Shield tanking is immune to cap warfare as well. If you don't know how to fight a speed tank it doesn't mean it's better than armor or shield tanks.
I'd be interested in a SINGLE setup Shield or Armor tank that can reduce Incoming DPS by 100%. Oh you don't have one thats right because SPEED CAN do that and shield and armor tanking CANNOT. ***The tears of those who fail to adapt sustain me. |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:10:00 -
[1804]
Edited by: marakor on 07/08/2008 20:12:38 Edited by: marakor on 07/08/2008 20:11:48
Originally by: SuiJuris Edited by: SuiJuris on 07/08/2008 20:04:01
Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul
Originally by: SuiJuris Edited by: SuiJuris on 07/08/2008 16:47:50 Edited by: SuiJuris on 07/08/2008 16:47:35
Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul
Wrong. They were not outdamaged or outtanked. The damage is decent on proper nanogang setups and they were speed tanked which was on par to shield and armor tanking. Now the damage is decent, without any tank. PLUS they lost the ability to pull at least some of them out.
Um except that speed tanking was well light years better then Armor or shield tanking.
No it wasn't. Webber, Cap warfare... armor is more sturdy and only succeptible to cap warfare. Shield tanking is immune to cap warfare as well. If you don't know how to fight a speed tank it doesn't mean it's better than armor or shield tanks.
I'd be interested in a SINGLE setup Shield or Armor tank that can reduce Incoming DPS by 100%. Oh you don't have one thats right because SPEED CAN do that and shield and armor tanking CANNOT.
So can range, docking entering a pos jumping through a gate.....
Why do you think that you should be able to pop summat that is not tackled?.
Nano forces ppl to tackle it to kill it, removing NANO will allow sheer alpha and dps to pop ships and remove the need to tackle.
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:35:00 -
[1805]
Originally by: marakor So can range, docking entering a pos jumping through a gate.....
Why do you think that you should be able to pop summat that is not tackled?.
Nano forces ppl to tackle it to kill it, removing NANO will allow sheer alpha and dps to pop ships and remove the need to tackle.
1. comparing nano to other broken mechanics is not going to make it unbroken 2. who said that? 3. nano is currently used to counter tackling on TQ. sorry, if you are massively outnumbered, you should loose. pure and simple. alphastriking a GROUP requires tactics, proper setup, inteligence (knowledge as well as gray matter) and luck. a pure snipergang, even with perfect locking time is (and will be even more if the patch goes live) obliterated by a recon gang if they have no tacklers
---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:39:00 -
[1806]
Originally by: Chi Quan
3. nano is currently used to counter tackling on TQ. sorry, if you are massively outnumbered, you should loose. pure and simple.
How many players in rifters do i need to win EVERY engagement? Please tell me. And i will get that many. If it does not work i will whine on forums to get what i want: "black hole critical player mass" - phenomena that instakills all enemies due to sheer numbers.
And seriously? You are an idiot. pure and simple.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:45:00 -
[1807]
Originally by: Chi Quan
1. comparing nano to other broken mechanics is not going to make it unbroken.
The extreem speeds are broken the 7kms are just fine.
Originally by: Chi Quan
2. who said that?
It does not need to be said its implied and required by every skilless blobber who supports this patch.
Originally by: Chi Quan
3. nano is currently used to counter tackling on TQ.
NO TOTALLY WRONG, nano is used to force ppl to use skill and team work to defeat it instead of just blobbing and throwing out alpha dps.
Originally by: Chi Quan
sorry, if you are massively outnumbered, you should loose. pure and simple.
Perhaps but removing NANO will now stop ppl from even trying to engage when before they at least attempted to fight now they will just not engage. Gratz on supporting a nerf that will reduce pvp in eve.
Originally by: Chi Quan
alphastriking a GROUP requires tactics, proper setup, inteligence (knowledge as well as gray matter) and luck.
NO AGAIN it requires a target being called locked and shot at and hit by enough ppl....thats it but if you think that takes brains and skill then you really do suck at pvp.
Originally by: Chi Quan
a pure snipergang, even with perfect locking time is (and will be even more if the patch goes live) obliterated by a recon gang if they have no tacklers
LOL get a clue unless your talking about very very very limited numbers in the sniper gang.
|
Bobbechk
The Handsome Boy Modeling School
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 21:34:00 -
[1808]
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: marakor So can range, docking entering a pos jumping through a gate.....
Why do you think that you should be able to pop summat that is not tackled?.
Nano forces ppl to tackle it to kill it, removing NANO will allow sheer alpha and dps to pop ships and remove the need to tackle.
1. comparing nano to other broken mechanics is not going to make it unbroken 2. who said that? 3. nano is currently used to counter tackling on TQ. sorry, if you are massively outnumbered, you should loose. pure and simple. alphastriking a GROUP requires tactics, proper setup, inteligence (knowledge as well as gray matter) and luck. a pure snipergang, even with perfect locking time is (and will be even more if the patch goes live) obliterated by a recon gang if they have no tacklers
WTS clue on how to pvp
|
Gut Punch
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 22:54:00 -
[1809]
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: marakor So can range, docking entering a pos jumping through a gate.....
Why do you think that you should be able to pop summat that is not tackled?.
Nano forces ppl to tackle it to kill it, removing NANO will allow sheer alpha and dps to pop ships and remove the need to tackle.
1. comparing nano to other broken mechanics is not going to make it unbroken 2. who said that? 3. nano is currently used to counter tackling on TQ. sorry, if you are massively outnumbered, you should loose. pure and simple. alphastriking a GROUP requires tactics, proper setup, inteligence (knowledge as well as gray matter) and luck. a pure snipergang, even with perfect locking time is (and will be even more if the patch goes live) obliterated by a recon gang if they have no tacklers
Go back to WOW. Just because two groups of people are on grid at the same time doesn't mean that there has to be a fight, right then and there.
|
Vladameir Harkenin
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 23:16:00 -
[1810]
Originally by: Chi Quan
Originally by: marakor So can range, docking entering a pos jumping through a gate.....
Why do you think that you should be able to pop summat that is not tackled?.
Nano forces ppl to tackle it to kill it, removing NANO will allow sheer alpha and dps to pop ships and remove the need to tackle.
1. comparing nano to other broken mechanics is not going to make it unbroken 2. who said that? 3. nano is currently used to counter tackling on TQ. sorry, if you are massively outnumbered, you should loose. pure and simple. alphastriking a GROUP requires tactics, proper setup, inteligence (knowledge as well as gray matter) and luck. a pure snipergang, even with perfect locking time is (and will be even more if the patch goes live) obliterated by a recon gang if they have no tacklers
LOL, such tactics...align to said safe spot...fc calls primary/secondary, everyone locks and presses f1-f6/f8...rinse/repeat, omg I think I almost broke a sweat typing that massive amounts of info on how sniper fleets work., there is no skill required there. No gray matter either, heck you could probably teach that to a monkey.
No being outnumbered does not mean you should be beaten. Guy must never have faced or been in a RR gang before, I can see it after this patch hits tq, people like him will be back on the forums screaming about how their gatecamp got owned by a rr gang. Followed by "nerf nerf I use tactics and they don't."
|
|
Kreeak
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 00:17:00 -
[1811]
The *fact* is that speed tanking is far superior to both shield and armor tanking which is why all these nano**** are choir whining. They know they will get spanked to oblivion and lose their precious ships once this patch goes through. Although, I will miss how fast these cowards can run away from a fight.
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 00:53:00 -
[1812]
Originally by: Kreeak The *fact* is that speed tanking is far superior to both shield and armor tanking which is why all these nano**** are choir whining. They know they will get spanked to oblivion and lose their precious ships once this patch goes through. Although, I will miss how fast these cowards can run away from a fight.
no, we'll all fly passive tanked drakes...sheesh, learn to follow along
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 06:16:00 -
[1813]
Originally by: Kerfira
So let's rejoice that CCP has actually found a differentiator for the speed modules! You'll use AB's for close-combat ships, and I'll use MWD for my long-range ships!
Wow, are you kidding me? Do you even realize what you're saying? Let me explain it to you.
Your long-range ships will be able to keep that range because by your logic, close-combat ships will be using an AB, so that close-range ship is never going to get in range before it gets popped. I'll put it this way... a Raven is sitting 100km away on a gate from something like a Megathron. Currently with TQ speeds a Mega with nothing on but an AB II goes 416 m/s with best skills and a Raven with a MWD about 1070 m/s.
Do you really think that Mega is going to be able to cover 100km even with TQ mechanics? Hell no. The only benefit it has is the ability to warp out. It's already hard enough for larger close-range ships to get into range of something that's long-range on TQ, why make it anymore difficult? You're eating up your cap chasing down the target while taking damage without being able to dish out any. HOWEVER, and this is very important, the new web change has created another fatal exploit to close-range turrets.
Currently on SiSi a Blasterthron can't track something the size of a cruiser and smaller at very close range (about 2km and under) because of the decreased web strength unless it fits 2 webs (unfortunately there's few mid slots to fit 2 webs on something like a Mega). Well, this is great for AFs because now they'll have a new role as close range tacklers and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, even if this Blasterthron DID fit a MWD and wanted to try and take out the Raven, you now have to worry about something else like an Ishtar staying under your guns and shutting off your MWD. So he is effectively slowing you down without even needing to fit a web AND pointing you. Whereas you switch places and have the Mega sniping and the Raven being tackled, the Raven can still be doing some sort of DPS to it's tackler even if it's orbiting you under 1000m without relying on drones.
MWDs aren't useless but the nerf has made them subpar. It would be nice if ABs were an option, I agree, but if they're still functioning the same way they are on TQ on SiSi then there's no real point to fitting your Blaster BS with something that makes you go 400 m/s. Nerfing MWDs to boost ABs isn't a good strategy if the ABs still suck. There was a reason people chose to fit MWDs over ABs - it was because ABs were broken for PvP. Well, they're still broken and now the MWD is even less reliable. This is a big problem because as it currently stands, snipers have a huge advantage.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 07:50:00 -
[1814]
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: Kerfira
So let's rejoice that CCP has actually found a differentiator for the speed modules! You'll use AB's for close-combat ships, and I'll use MWD for my long-range ships!
Wow, are you kidding me? Do you even realize what you're saying? Let me explain it to you.
You're reading FAR too much into my comment... Perhaps reading the rest of the post instead of just picking one sentence would be an idea?
All it was about was Melegaunt Tanthul saying that MWD were now useless (because they were now counterable in some cases), and that everyone would fit AB's! I simply countered that by showing that for long-range fitted fleet ships, it still makes more sense to fit MWD. I also believe this to be the case for short-range ships, but since I don't fly them I didn't want to argue that point.
Nothing more than that.....
Also to quote a CCP dev (can't remember who it was): "Battleships are not supposed to be solo wtfpwnmobiles!" It thus follows that if you want to fly a battleship, you better have support to tackle for you!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Andnowthenews
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 08:59:00 -
[1815]
Edited by: Andnowthenews on 08/08/2008 09:00:51
Originally by: Kreeak The *fact* is that speed tanking is far superior to both shield and armor tanking which is why all these nano**** are choir whining. They know they will get spanked to oblivion and lose their precious ships once this patch goes through. Although, I will miss how fast these cowards can run away from a fight.
I sure i have mentioned this before but i will post it again just for you and the others who missed it:
Is that what you think this patch is honestly going to do?.......do you all really think that the ppl who fly NANO now are suddenly gonna sit still and let you shoot them or fit and fly ships in styles and gangs that you can beat either in your gangs or when you are in your ratting setup in a belt?....i know that is what most of those dancing for joy think it will do but do you honestly believe that will happen?.
Here is what will really happen:
For a short time if this r*tarded patch goes through the pure pro pvp guys will be looking at various fits and ships and styles and they will be training them together in gangs and in teams.
They will head out in these new styles and fits and ships into the same areas they always have pvping away and killing lazy skill less whiners by the dozen as they always have.
After a few months of this the whiners will try to find another thing in the game to blame it on instead of there lack of skill, training, team work and start another thread about how the game is broken and how if X is nerfed the balance that is missing from eve will be restored.
Are you listening bud?......cos i can tell ya no nerf no patch will make you a better pvper you need to do that yourself, and until you stop blaming the game and start blaming yourself and doing something about it things will not change for you or any of the other nerfits.
get it?....got it?....good.
|
Ihrda Siharkhail
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 09:01:00 -
[1816]
Originally by: Kreeak The *fact* is that speed tanking is far superior to both shield and armor tanking which is why all these nano**** are choir whining. They know they will get spanked to oblivion and lose their precious ships once this patch goes through. Although, I will miss how fast these cowards can run away from a fight.
If your shit at pvp, you be shit at pvp after the nerf aswell.. youll just die to different ships.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 09:10:00 -
[1817]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: Kerfira
So let's rejoice that CCP has actually found a differentiator for the speed modules! You'll use AB's for close-combat ships, and I'll use MWD for my long-range ships!
Wow, are you kidding me? Do you even realize what you're saying? Let me explain it to you.
You're reading FAR too much into my comment... Perhaps reading the rest of the post instead of just picking one sentence would be an idea?
All it was about was Melegaunt Tanthul saying that MWD were now useless (because they were now counterable in some cases), and that everyone would fit AB's! I simply countered that by showing that for long-range fitted fleet ships, it still makes more sense to fit MWD. I also believe this to be the case for short-range ships, but since I don't fly them I didn't want to argue that point.
Nothing more than that.....
Also to quote a CCP dev (can't remember who it was): "Battleships are not supposed to be solo wtfpwnmobiles!" It thus follows that if you want to fly a battleship, you better have support to tackle for you!
Are you suggesting Blaster-Battleships somehow were?
Slow, very short engagement range, vulnerable to EW, vulnerable to cap warfare... ...and now slower, plus can be kited by a T1 cruiser (unfitted) inside Blaster optimal as well as being kited at longer ranges.
Wow! That's sure some Solo pwnmobile we got there Jim... --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 09:31:00 -
[1818]
Hey CCP, how about dropping the big and important Ambulation project for a day or two and put some effort on balancing this patch? Appart from all the whining and personal smacking in this thread there are several quite good ideas about what parts of this patch are good and what parts need a bit of tweaking...
This is a quite important patch to the game and both the nano "community" and the non-nano "community" are hoping that you guys could put a bit more effort in it. A simple "We have taken some of the feedback into consideration, atm we are working on a new version of this patch and hoping to get it rdy for sisi by ***day." ...or... "All the tests that are being made on sisi are showing the results that we have desinged for Eve, patch is looking good so far." ...as I said. At least tell us what's going on. (ehm, plz?)
|
Onionico
Series of Tubes
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 09:40:00 -
[1819]
Originally by: Stab Wounds who says you can't still use your ***abonds, nano-ishtars, rapiers, curses and huginns? PEOPLE will still field these ships because they are still the FASTEST MOST POWERFUL in game and good at MOST if not ALL tasks.
Please tell me you're serious.
Hac's without speed are uninsurable BC's.
Ludicrous speed needed nerfing, but all of this at once? For christ's sakes you just made mimtar recons useless and all hacs save the eagle useless as well.
Bravo CCP.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:19:00 -
[1820]
rifter+ab+nos+screm+web/recharger tried overdrive t2 x2 / sar t2+anp t2: cant tackle ships with: -missiles -t2 drones -heavy neuts+drones -webs+heavy neuts
can tank: -torps -large turets if not with above list
|
|
ctttttttt
Caldari THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:21:00 -
[1821]
Awsome patch - now just delete ecm and nuets and you will never have the balance the game ever again.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:24:00 -
[1822]
Originally by: ctttttttt Awsome patch - now just delete ecm and nuets and you will never have the balance the game ever again.
Dont forget these as well.
Cloaks, ppl with higher sp, ships with better range, team work......
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:28:00 -
[1823]
Edited by: Kerfira on 08/08/2008 11:28:17
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Are you suggesting Blaster-Battleships somehow were?
Slow, very short engagement range, vulnerable to EW, vulnerable to cap warfare... ...and now slower, plus can be kited by a T1 cruiser (unfitted) inside Blaster optimal as well as being kited at longer ranges.
Wow! That's sure some Solo pwnmobile we got there Jim...
You could also benefit from reading the post I replied to instead of just picking a single sentence to nitpick about.....
The guy I replied to (post #1854, Markas Crais) was the one whining that a blasterthron couldn't work now without 2 webs, and he didn't have the slots for that etc, etc..... essentially, HE wanted it to be the solo omgwtfpwnmobile, and I just told him it wasn't supposed to be one.....
Reading comprehension FTW
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:35:00 -
[1824]
Originally by: AshtarDJ Hey CCP, how about dropping the big and important Ambulation project for a day or two and put some effort on balancing this patch? Appart from all the whining and personal smacking in this thread there are several quite good ideas about what parts of this patch are good and what parts need a bit of tweaking...
This is a quite important patch to the game and both the nano "community" and the non-nano "community" are hoping that you guys could put a bit more effort in it. A simple "We have taken some of the feedback into consideration, atm we are working on a new version of this patch and hoping to get it rdy for sisi by ***day." ...or... "All the tests that are being made on sisi are showing the results that we have desinged for Eve, patch is looking good so far." ...as I said. At least tell us what's going on. (ehm, plz?)
You missed the shifty idea behind recent changes and Ambulation. It is no coincidence they launch Ambulation and apply the balancing patch around the same time period. They are actually working on social environment for all those bored, dissapointed and frustrated players so they have stuff to do while training for snipers and bricks :)
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 11:42:00 -
[1825]
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 08/08/2008 11:28:17
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Are you suggesting Blaster-Battleships somehow were?
Slow, very short engagement range, vulnerable to EW, vulnerable to cap warfare... ...and now slower, plus can be kited by a T1 cruiser (unfitted) inside Blaster optimal as well as being kited at longer ranges.
Wow! That's sure some Solo pwnmobile we got there Jim...
You could also benefit from reading the post I replied to instead of just picking a single sentence to nitpick about.....
The guy I replied to (post #1854, Markas Crais) was the one whining that a blasterthron couldn't work now without 2 webs, and he didn't have the slots for that etc, etc..... essentially, HE wanted it to be the solo omgwtfpwnmobile, and I just told him it wasn't supposed to be one.....
Reading comprehension FTW
It's not a nitpick it's a valid point: you we're implying Blaster-Battleships on TQ are a solopwnmobile rolling out that age old phrase - they aren't for the reasons IÆve highlighted, and on Sisi they are now without a role.
I know this isn't originally what you were arguing about (nano-ships running away) but it is as a consequence of these changes that Blaster-boats on Sisi, don't work.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Miss Rumpelstilzchen
Minmatar Black Horizon Ltd
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 12:49:00 -
[1826]
omg is it so difficult... just add a Speed limit to the ships.. or a MWD speed multiplicator.. like for the Warpspeed (base 1.. Frigs have a 6x multi, cruiser a 3x etc..)
|
SlaineMor
Minmatar Sicarri Covenant
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 13:14:00 -
[1827]
Increase the thrust on ABs to make them more viable too... The sub-mwd speed maybe acceptable if it didnt take 30mins to get up to speed
Eat my Rusty Bullethole! |
Mark Amarr
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 14:00:00 -
[1828]
This seems like a bad patch really - there's now precious little reason to spend isk on nice toys, because they are no longer any better than t1 cheapy fits....
Why would anyone bother with a HAC over a tech 1 Battlecruiser or BS now? - they're stacks more expensive to make, uninsurable, and no better!
Why not just remove all ships from the game, put us all in the exact same hull with the exact same fixed fitout, and the exact same fixed skillpoints = tadaaaa "balance" is achieved....
|
Melegaunt Tanthul
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:57:00 -
[1829]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: Kerfira
So let's rejoice that CCP has actually found a differentiator for the speed modules! You'll use AB's for close-combat ships, and I'll use MWD for my long-range ships!
Wow, are you kidding me? Do you even realize what you're saying? Let me explain it to you.
You're reading FAR too much into my comment... Perhaps reading the rest of the post instead of just picking one sentence would be an idea?
All it was about was Melegaunt Tanthul saying that MWD were now useless (because they were now counterable in some cases), and that everyone would fit AB's! I simply countered that by showing that for long-range fitted fleet ships, it still makes more sense to fit MWD. I also believe this to be the case for short-range ships, but since I don't fly them I didn't want to argue that point.
Nothing more than that.....
Also to quote a CCP dev (can't remember who it was): "Battleships are not supposed to be solo wtfpwnmobiles!" It thus follows that if you want to fly a battleship, you better have support to tackle for you!
I entirely agree with what Markas said. As my argument goes towards "useless" is that in 95% of the time you don't want to fit MWD now. Because it can and IT WILL get disabled. So if MWD is still usable for uber blob fleet battles or very special circumstances (eg equiping both mwd and ab on ships with mids to spare) that still doesn't make it usefull. Like Markas said it's subpar and a PVPer doesn't use suboptimal unless (s)he's a clueless one that always fights in blobs by numbers alone. If it's suboptimal I won't use it. Hence it's useless. Cap rechargers for example are useless on PVP. Just because they're good on things like Dread fits doesn't change the fact that they're 95% suboptimal compared to a cap injector... I hope you can finally understand what we're saying here.
PS Supposedly the patch favoured guerrilla warfare?
|
Melegaunt Tanthul
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:01:00 -
[1830]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
Originally by: Kreeak The *fact* is that speed tanking is far superior to both shield and armor tanking which is why all these nano**** are choir whining. They know they will get spanked to oblivion and lose their precious ships once this patch goes through. Although, I will miss how fast these cowards can run away from a fight.
no, we'll all fly passive tanked drakes...sheesh, learn to follow along
/agreed.
I've already dropped mini training and switched my crosstraining to caldari/missile spec because I'm sure they'll be left as they are. Hail the Drake clone army! :P
|
|
|
|
|
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 80 .. 88 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |