| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zurin Arctus
   |
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:02:00 -
[1]
Why? Because it's disingenuous. I can tell you right now that the alliances that abuse nano tactics are getting every alt of every pilot to try and vote this down. Look some of the people up ingame. Noob corp much? It's not so much the EVE community speaking as a childish minority who don't want to learn how to do anything other than fly nano.
|
TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:08:00 -
[2]
the carrier nerf got canceled, is there any reason it shouldn't be the same for nanos?
|
Jubal Yearly
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:08:00 -
[3]
how dare you
|
MirrorGod
Heretic Militia
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:10:00 -
[4]
AGAINST!
Save Small Gang Warfare |
Zurin Arctus
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:10:00 -
[5]
Why yes, Forum Whining Alt, there is a reason things should not play out the same way here.
Carriers didn't need that much of a nerf. Nano ships, at least hacs and recons, do. It's quite simple.
|
Steel Tigeress
Gallente
Steel-Wolfs
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Steel Tigeress on 03/08/2008 19:18:43
While I think this topic is pretty pointless... I'll play along.
Another difference between this nerf and the carrier nerf..... Prettymuch no one supported the carrier nerf except for 1 or 2 fanbois who like to blow smoke up ccp's .....ya.
While on the flipside about 1/2 of eve's population supports a nano-nerf. Even most of the posters in the anti-nerf thread say they want nano's changed, just not this change.
|
RDevz
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:30:00 -
[7]
poast
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:50:00 -
[8]
Yes, because a dev blog that specifically says player input will be considered should ignore player input. 
------------------
Fix the forums! |
Red Thunder
Most Wanted INC
G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:54:00 -
[9]
and most of the people on the "for" topic are in noob corps too, so whats your point? sore loser?
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Big Al
Stoat's Ultimate Carebear Adventure
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 01:56:00 -
[10]
There's a far wider assortment 1 day alts in the much smaller for nerf thread tbh.
It doesn't matter though, voting on same account alts (according to CCP) is detectable and will be accounted for.
Or more likely they just won't listen and push through whatever fits their fancy.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 07:39:00 -
[11]
 Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Moku'Jihn
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 14:56:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Yes, because a dev blog that specifically says player input will be considered should ignore player input.
Nope, CCP should not ignore input, but they don't have to follow it either. They should read the input, think about it, perhaps test a bit of the alternative suggestions and then react upon it the way they see fit. And that can be to continue without changes.
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 15:44:00 -
[13]
oh god, this is hilarity, introduce the beauracracy to stop what the bearuracracy started... like killing yourself with a weapon you made... BRILLIANT!
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 18:39:00 -
[14]
The votes here are to be used as a guide, and not as a final say. CCP has realized there is an obvious speed flaw and is attempting to find a cure. Those voting for or against are essentially voting on just how much of a nerf speed tanks get. Mark my word... speed will change, with or without support votes.
---------------------------------
Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |