Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Lili Lu
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 21:00:00 -
[481]
Originally by: Nalshiga Dshoayo I know it's a little bit off topic, but the nighthawk really needs one more low or med slot.
the drake can run a better PvP fit than the NH due to more grid and more med slots.
this is absurd
Don't know what you are on about. See post 401 on page 14. The Nighthawk is fine, unless you are arguing for a buff to all command ships, in which case I would not disagree that that would be nice. |
Stylom
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 21:39:00 -
[482]
w4nk
Click here for ANR recruitment details |
Nalshiga Dshoayo
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 21:52:00 -
[483]
Edited by: Nalshiga Dshoayo on 24/10/2008 21:56:31 Edited by: Nalshiga Dshoayo on 24/10/2008 21:54:01 it's the least PvP able field command ship.
the Sleipnir outdamages the NH. NH has less high slots and combined slots than the only other shield tank, the Spleipnir.
the Sleipnir, whatever build it's using, always has grid to spare. the NH can't even fit a nos or a warfare link in the last high slot.
the NH has 5 med slots and you need 3 for PvP: web, scrambler, microwarp/ab what's left is not enough for a command ship worthy tank/survivability
|
Kayosoni
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 22:38:00 -
[484]
Edited by: Kayosoni on 24/10/2008 22:39:17 Ok here's an idea. Scale missile damage UPWARDS if a target is going slower than the missile's explosion velocity, but is also lower than its sig resolution, the same way sig radius is compared to velocity right now for decreasing damage, do the opposite when the ship is going slower. This will match how guns can hit any ship at close range going slow enough. -----------------------------------
|
steveid
Killed In Action
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 22:45:00 -
[485]
as part of the missile changes please please please update the sig radius of warrior drones. They are nigh on impossible to hit with light missles now .. fix that if you would :D.
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 23:02:00 -
[486]
Originally by: Murina Things were a lot more fun when all you needed to do was web and point summat for it to go splat from in flight missiles hey pally?.
Hahahah, indeed.
I love how now all the missile people are whining when their crap's taken a 50% hit. I'm sorry your playstyle survived somewhat intact. Plenty of others didn't! Still lovin' these changes? |
Vanthropy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 02:48:00 -
[487]
epic! these changes are working in the right direction.. +1's all around lol |
Shard Merchant
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 03:30:00 -
[488]
Some feedback, even though I'm having issues getting on SISI..
Quote: With max skills, interceptors can use MWD as effectively as afterburners.
An afterburner velocity (role?) bonus for Interceptors is preferable to the bonus they currently have.
Drone Changes
You're making a huge mistake by boosting tracking. Heavy drones don't hit small targets when they're in a neat orbit, due to transverse. But Heavy drones will often murder small targets as they follow just behind them. There are many cases where you settle into an orbit and the Heavy/Med will get clean hits on you because it aren't moving in a circular path.
It basically means going up against any ship with oversized drones results in a situation where moving puts you at the mercy of drones while sitting still puts you at the mercy of their turrets.
Not to mention the signature resolution of drones is too small. Light drones should have ~40m, Mediums ~140m, Heavies ~360m, and fighters ~400m. Don't mediums, heavies and fighters all have 125m now?
Missile Changes
Still way too easy to hit smaller ships, especially with frigates with Heavies and cruisers with Cruise. Ideally, one should have to use precision missiles for those situations - but you've still made regular missiles viable in the cases where both are able to do some damage.
You guys don't seem to realize that while Precision missiles are marginally better, their lower DPS makes them worse against everything else. Swapping takes time, and then there are the penalties.
Your challenge is to ensure that Lights, Heavies and Cruise have no issues hitting ships of their class, but cannot be used on smaller targets as a half-way tradeoff to precisions.
|
Lili Lu
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 03:51:00 -
[489]
Edited by: Lili Lu on 25/10/2008 03:52:00
Originally by: Shard Merchant Some feedback, even though I'm having issues getting on SISI..
Quote: With max skills, interceptors can use MWD as effectively as afterburners.
An afterburner velocity (role?) bonus for Interceptors is preferable to the bonus they currently have.
Drone Changes
You're making a huge mistake by boosting tracking. Heavy drones don't hit small targets when they're in a neat orbit, due to transverse. But Heavy drones will often murder small targets as they follow just behind them. There are many cases where you settle into an orbit and the Heavy/Med will get clean hits on you because it aren't moving in a circular path.
It basically means going up against any ship with oversized drones results in a situation where moving puts you at the mercy of drones while sitting still puts you at the mercy of their turrets.
Not to mention the signature resolution of drones is too small. Light drones should have ~40m, Mediums ~140m, Heavies ~360m, and fighters ~400m. Don't mediums, heavies and fighters all have 125m now?
Missile Changes
Still way too easy to hit smaller ships, especially with frigates with Heavies and cruisers with Cruise. Ideally, one should have to use precision missiles for those situations - but you've still made regular missiles viable in the cases where both are able to do some damage.
You guys don't seem to realize that while Precision missiles are marginally better, their lower DPS makes them worse against everything else. Swapping takes time, and then there are the penalties.
Your challenge is to ensure that Lights, Heavies and Cruise have no issues hitting ships of their class, but cannot be used on smaller targets as a half-way tradeoff to precisions.
No. As much as I am sick of Caldari supremacy in pve your ideas would result in missile boats being totally useless in missions.
Large guns and cruise missiles have to have some damage potential against small ships. For large guns that damage potential comes at range and having a chance through tracking formula and hit quality to be able to deal a killing sniper shot. For missiles, because they always hit the proper tradeoff is reduced (not eliminated) damage against smaller targets at all ranges.
|
UrsaeMajoris
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 05:38:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Wannabehero Regarding PVE
I was optimistic of the alteration to the missile formula. In general I liked the sound of it... at first. My conclusion at this point however is that this formula is intrinsically totally borked.
Just forgetting about PVP, lets look at PVE
A standard mission NPC battleship runs the range of on average 350 - 460 m^2 sig and speeds of around 140 m/s orbit
With the new damage formula, I see that cruise missiles do 50% or less the damage they do currently to NPC battleships, and it gets even worse for torpedoes. Target painters do not help significantly, as the problem lies in the explosion velocity variable of the damage formula.
I find this unacceptable.
I will write this again, big and bold so it might be noticed
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
I completely agree with you. The explosion velocity reductions are too extreme - all of these missiles nerfs are too extreme unless the damage formula has been changed in such a way that explosion velocity isn't a big a factor towards final dealt damage anymore?
The torp changes are unnecessary - why increase the explosion radius on Rage Torps? 540m to 650m!? Most battleship-hull based targets will now require 2 target painters (or 1 with very good skills on a golem) to be used on them for their sig radius to match the explosion radius which is not usually an option for raven/cnr fittings.
Yes I'm aware Rage Torps have been given a damage boost but it's only an increase of 6.67% percent, certainly not in scale with an explosion radius increase of 20%. If anything CCP should rethink some of these changes or think about implementing a skill that decreases the explosion radius for "unguided" missiles. At the very least please let Crash boosters affect "unguided" missiles as well.
I'd somewhat understand if CCP was trying to encourage proper use of the Rapier/Huginn/Hyena target painting abilities (instead of just nano setups) but then again, they are Minmatar ships and Caldari are the primary torp users.
|
|
PhatBoy
Caldari Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 06:20:00 -
[491]
Originally by: UrsaeMajoris Edited by: UrsaeMajoris on 25/10/2008 05:48:04
Originally by: Wannabehero Regarding PVE
I was optimistic of the alteration to the missile formula. In general I liked the sound of it... at first. My conclusion at this point however is that this formula is intrinsically totally borked.
Just forgetting about PVP, lets look at PVE
A standard mission NPC battleship runs the range of on average 350 - 460 m^2 sig and speeds of around 140 m/s orbit
With the new damage formula, I see that cruise missiles do 50% or less the damage they do currently to NPC battleships, and it gets even worse for torpedoes. Target painters do not help significantly, as the problem lies in the explosion velocity variable of the damage formula.
I find this unacceptable.
I will write this again, big and bold so it might be noticed
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
I completely agree with you. The explosion velocity reductions are too extreme - all of these missiles nerfs are too extreme unless the damage formula has been changed in such a way that explosion velocity isn't a big a factor towards final dealt damage anymore?
The torp changes are unnecessary - why increase the explosion radius on Rage Torps? 540m to 650m!? Most battleship-hull based targets will now require 2 target painters (or 1 with very good skills on a golem) to be used on them for their sig radius to match the explosion radius which is not usually an option for raven/cnr fittings.
Yes I'm aware Rage Torps have been given a damage boost but it's only an increase of 6.67% percent, certainly not in scale with an explosion radius increase of 20%. If anything CCP should rethink some of these changes or think about implementing a skill that decreases the explosion radius for "unguided" missiles. At the very least please let Crash boosters affect "unguided" missiles as well or let Warhead Rigor Catalyst rigs + exp radius implant affect them too.
I'd somewhat understand if CCP was trying to encourage proper use of the Rapier/Huginn/Hyena target painting abilities (instead of just nano setups) but then again, they are Minmatar ships and Caldari are the primary torp users.
Signed and agreed with on both statements. Like i have been saying. These missile nerfs are MUCH to EXTREME when only a tiny tweak is needed. Like stated b4 Ravens should beable to do what any other BS vs BS can do. turrets have a chance to insta pop a inty but a raven now has ABSOLUTLY NO CHANCE of even coming close. even a webbed and painted inty can take 2mins to kill i mean honestly its if you dont see that is to extreme CCP then i have no idea what you call extreme. |
Polly Prissypantz
Dingleberry Appreciation Society
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 06:55:00 -
[492]
At the CCP office one night:
Drunk CCP Dev1: "Oh hey guys... What's about the most useless weapon in the game for PvP?" Drunk CCP Dev2: "Ah... Missiles?" Drunk CCP Dev1: "Yes, thank you drunk CCP Dev2. I have a brilliant plan. Lets make missiles even more useless than they already are. If we do it as part of the nano-nerf no one will notice because they'll all be too busy focusing on their nano setups." Drunk CCP Dev2: "Won't that also screw over our carebear mission runners as well? Aren't they the ones that pay our ludicrous beer bill each month?" Drunk CCP Dev1: "Why yes it certainly will. Killing two birds with one stone. We needed a way to slow down all those evil ISK making machines. We'll just say it's for their own good! Besides, it's not like any of them will quit, they'll just whine on the forums a bit and continue on paying our beer bill." Drunk CCP Dev2: "PURE GENIOUS! I'll get right on it! Well, OK, one more beer first, I can't work on less than 21 beers."
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 06:58:00 -
[493]
Originally by: PhatBoy
Originally by: UrsaeMajoris Edited by: UrsaeMajoris on 25/10/2008 05:48:04
Originally by: Wannabehero Regarding PVE
I was optimistic of the alteration to the missile formula. In general I liked the sound of it... at first. My conclusion at this point however is that this formula is intrinsically totally borked.
Just forgetting about PVP, lets look at PVE
A standard mission NPC battleship runs the range of on average 350 - 460 m^2 sig and speeds of around 140 m/s orbit
With the new damage formula, I see that cruise missiles do 50% or less the damage they do currently to NPC battleships, and it gets even worse for torpedoes. Target painters do not help significantly, as the problem lies in the explosion velocity variable of the damage formula.
I find this unacceptable.
I will write this again, big and bold so it might be noticed
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
I completely agree with you. The explosion velocity reductions are too extreme - all of these missiles nerfs are too extreme unless the damage formula has been changed in such a way that explosion velocity isn't a big a factor towards final dealt damage anymore?
The torp changes are unnecessary - why increase the explosion radius on Rage Torps? 540m to 650m!? Most battleship-hull based targets will now require 2 target painters (or 1 with very good skills on a golem) to be used on them for their sig radius to match the explosion radius which is not usually an option for raven/cnr fittings.
Yes I'm aware Rage Torps have been given a damage boost but it's only an increase of 6.67% percent, certainly not in scale with an explosion radius increase of 20%. If anything CCP should rethink some of these changes or think about implementing a skill that decreases the explosion radius for "unguided" missiles. At the very least please let Crash boosters affect "unguided" missiles as well or let Warhead Rigor Catalyst rigs + exp radius implant affect them too.
I'd somewhat understand if CCP was trying to encourage proper use of the Rapier/Huginn/Hyena target painting abilities (instead of just nano setups) but then again, they are Minmatar ships and Caldari are the primary torp users.
Signed and agreed with on both statements. Like i have been saying. These missile nerfs are MUCH to EXTREME when only a tiny tweak is needed. Like stated b4 Ravens should beable to do what any other BS vs BS can do. turrets have a chance to insta pop a inty but a raven now has ABSOLUTLY NO CHANCE of even coming close. even a webbed and painted inty can take 2mins to kill i mean honestly its if you dont see that is to extreme CCP then i have no idea what you call extreme.
never saw turets insta popoing inty ? Can you give screen/avi ? |
Vanthropy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 07:07:00 -
[494]
wait... minny's don't use missles... that's new to me. |
Vanthropy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 07:11:00 -
[495]
and how can anyone honestly say that nerfing mission farming is bad? |
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 07:30:00 -
[496]
Edited by: Rip Striker on 25/10/2008 07:31:24 Imo, it's not the missile system that is screwed up, it's the other weapon systems that are b0rked. To me it is clear that battleships should not be able to kill a frigate so easily with large guns, whatever the range/tracking/etc.
If you travel solo in your battleship, fit a few small guns to protect yourself against smaller ships. If you travel in a gang, make sure you have support. Simple as that.
Fly safe!
EDIT: Regarding level 4 missions, it has become quite clear that the frigate sized ships have to be converted to cruiser sized ones. |
Polly Prissypantz
Dingleberry Appreciation Society
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 07:51:00 -
[497]
Originally by: Rip Striker EDIT: Regarding level 4 missions, it has become quite clear that the frigate sized ships have to be converted to cruiser sized ones.
The issue isn't small targets - you have drones for that. The issue is any (and I mean any) reduction in damage output of missiles against BC/BS sized targets is F-A-I-L, in particular cruise missiles which already deal an embarrassing low amount of damage for their supposed size class.
The general reason for cruise missiles having already ****-poor damage is because they can deal that damage at practically any range up to and over 200km. But... Considering that they're already penalised with craptastic damage output for their supposed range advantage (which in 90% of PvP situations isn't an advantage at all due to flight time), there is no reason to make them worse. Unless of course, as I not-so-subtly suggested in my previous post in this thread, CCP is trying to screw over missions runners, which wouldn't surprise me.
|
Karl Luckner
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 07:59:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Vanthropy and how can anyone honestly say that nerfing mission farming is bad?
Sure, the game with the worst PvE I ever encountered has to be nerfed even more. |
marie blueprint
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 09:21:00 -
[499]
Originally by: Karl Luckner
Originally by: Vanthropy and how can anyone honestly say that nerfing mission farming is bad?
Sure, the game with the worst PvE I ever encountered has to be nerfed even more.
i agree jesus this is a bad idea you alredy need 5 mill sp in missiles just to get 500 dps in a raven
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 09:23:00 -
[500]
Originally by: Karl Luckner
Originally by: Vanthropy and how can anyone honestly say that nerfing mission farming is bad?
Sure, the game with the worst PvE I ever encountered has to be nerfed even more.
And they wont be nerfing mission farming they will just make it so to be effective you should be flying gallente and amarr ships. Yes both will be needed to have proper efficiency vs the "bad" types of rats(gallente for gurista/serp/angels) Amarr for the rest.
|
|
Suitonia
Gallente interimo
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 09:43:00 -
[501]
Maybe CCP can rebalance the NPC's in the missions then so they take appropriate damage, if its an issue? I.e. Increase their signiture radius. |
dojocan81
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 10:03:00 -
[502]
If you make my Golem useless with these missile changes, i'll kick butts, this i swear! |
UrsaeMajoris
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 10:40:00 -
[503]
Originally by: Vanthropy wait... minny's don't use missles... that's new to me.
I never said nor implied that Minmatar don't use missiles and I was talking about how badly the increased explosion radius on Rage Torpedoes affects Caldari for the raven/cnr/golem/widow all the ships most likely to use them - as it sucks for shield tanking battleships to now need 2 target painters or support from another race's ships: Hyena/huginn/rapier painting just to be able to have a battleship hull-sized target match the explosion radius.
Minmatar hardly get affected by the torp change considering only 1 ship in their entire fleet is most likely to use rage torpedoes - the typhoon. |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 10:50:00 -
[504]
Originally by: Wannabehero
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
So its ok for every race to have falloff/reduced damage (some times 0 dmg at certain ranges) in their weapons systems but caldari should hit with 100% dmg from 0-max range with no down side to the system they use?.
The whole nerf speed idea was a bad one as tackling should be virtually essential in pvp and now it is not.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 11:42:00 -
[505]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 25/10/2008 10:56:53
Originally by: Wannabehero
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
So its ok for every race to have falloff/reduced damage (some times 0 dmg at certain ranges) in their weapons systems but caldari should hit with 100% dmg from 0-max range with no down side to the system they use?.
A look at sweet spots for other systems and a comparison should be made but your dreaming if you think you should be able to hit for 100% at every range available to your weapon system and not be effected by the speed of the target.
The whole nerf speed idea was a bad one as tackling should be virtually essential in pvp and now it is not just raw dmg. As long as over time DPS is the same yes.
Amarr ships will do missions faster than caldari ships as long as the enemies are not Guristas or Angels.
Gallente ships will do missions faster than caldari as long as the enemies are not Blood raiders or sansha.
Tbh in any situation where you take "mission efficiency" Caldari ships come out as 2nd or 3rd. But their flexibility means that over time we can compete with others.
Though nothing will beat a Nightmare in mission/time efficiency.
What you want is to make certain caldari is the worst setup in any situation it seems cause that is where we are heading at the moment. But what the hell do you care you dont fly em anyway.
I dont care how the math is worked out but atm Caldari are balanced for PvE. A topskill pilot with access to both gallente and Amarr ships will always be faster than us but then that is no problem. Having 2,5m SP in missiles made worthless though is annoying but for me it just means 3-4 months of semiafkness while I get amarr BS up to speed and Large Pulse spec trained. |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 11:56:00 -
[506]
Edited by: lecrotta on 25/10/2008 12:03:51
Originally by: Hyveres
What you want is to make certain caldari is the worst setup in any situation it seems cause that is where we are heading at the moment. But what the hell do you care you dont fly em anyway.
This patch is about the highly vaunted "balance" that ppl preached about nano when they found it too hard (compared to mission running) not about making caldari the wort race at any situation. But hey as was pointed out to nano pilots complaining about this nerf "adapt or die" missiles and ravens in particular will not be the new "i-win" button.
|
s73v3n2k
Caldari UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 12:14:00 -
[507]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 25/10/2008 10:56:53
Originally by: Wannabehero
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
So its ok for every race to have falloff/reduced damage (some times 0 dmg at certain ranges) in their weapons systems but caldari should hit with 100% dmg from 0-max range with no down side to the system they use?.
A look at sweet spots for other systems and a comparison should be made but your dreaming if you think you should be able to hit for 100% at every range available to your weapon system and not be effected by the speed of the target.
The whole nerf speed idea was a bad one as tackling should be virtually essential in pvp and now it is not just raw dmg.
Tell me if i am wrong but you are saying that missiles have no down side like other weapons systems and aren't affected by speed. Now maybe its me but i get the impression you don't use missiles because missiles have loads of disadvantages that other weapon systems don't have and are affected by speed in their current state and more so after the patch.
The disadvantages of missiles are the flight time for one all other weapons have insta damage missiles don't. They have the disadvantage that they can be neutralized by both smartbombs and defender missiles. All these point to the fact they need a higher DPS to balance their lost dps.
missiles have already been nerfed a year or so ago when ccp re-vamped the whole system and this was brought in to cause a dmg reduction based on the velocity of the target ship. Now the problem is CCP seem to be making further changes to missiles which make more or less useless in combat against equal sized or smaller ships. But on the other hand there doesn't seem to be any changes being made to the tracking of turrets who are therefore getting a boost.
Turrets are getting a boost because the whole point of the speed nerf was that ships were able to travel so fast that turrets couldn't do any dmg and missiles were too slow to hit them and when they did, the dmg was so poor it wasn't affective. CCP have realised that slowing ships down would increase the dmg they would take and for some reason left turret tracking alone and decided only missiles needed a change.
The problem we have though is that these changes weren't brought in because of a PVE issue with mechanics it was broaught in to resolve and an imbalance in PVP. Therefore i don't see why a weapon style suited to PVE is being nerfed as highly as it is.
|
DaveJ777
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 12:42:00 -
[508]
Edited by: DaveJ777 on 25/10/2008 12:43:10
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 25/10/2008 10:56:53
Originally by: Wannabehero
Cruise missiles and Torpedoes will do ~ 50% or less the damage they do currently against NPC's
So its ok for every race to have falloff/reduced damage (some times 0 dmg at certain ranges) in their weapons systems but caldari should hit with 100% dmg from 0-max range with no down side to the system they use?.
A look at sweet spots for other systems and a comparison should be made but your dreaming if you think you should be able to hit for 100% at every range available to your weapon system and not be effected by the speed of the target.
The whole nerf speed idea was a bad one as tackling should be virtually essential in pvp and now it is not just raw dmg.
You have completely misunderstood that quote and the rest of the post. It does not state that missiles should never have a damage reduction. It does not state that missiles should have no downsides. It simply states that a PVP balance change has had a massive effect on the PVE style of play. The change is large enough that slow, boring missions will now take twice as long. This is enough to make large numbers of people quit. _________________________________________ A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 12:53:00 -
[509]
Originally by: s73v3n2k The disadvantages of missiles are the flight time for one all other weapons have insta damage missiles don't. They have the disadvantage that they can be neutralized by both smartbombs and defender missiles. All these point to the fact they need a higher DPS to balance their lost dps.
Tracking disruptors are a lot more effective against turrets than smart bombs or defender missiles are against all but dread missile systems. Missiles also have a full choice of dmg types unlike every other type of system.
Originally by: s73v3n2k Turrets are getting a boost because the whole point of the speed nerf was that ships were able to travel so fast that turrets couldn't do any dmg and missiles were too slow to hit them and when they did, the dmg was so poor it wasn't affective. CCP have realised that slowing ships down would increase the dmg they would take and for some reason left turret tracking alone and decided only missiles needed a change.
If a BS turret ship wants to hit a ceptor tackling it the ceptor needs to have a transversal of under 100ms, that is over 6 unstacked 60% webs bud.
Tracking is not that great believe me. |
Sylthi
Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 13:03:00 -
[510]
Edited by: Sylthi on 25/10/2008 13:06:12
Originally by: lecrotta i just find it amusing that the ppl who supported the nerf when they thought only nano was gonna suffer now think it sucks cos their favorite type of play is getting screwed over as well.........
You make the fatal assumption that EVERYONE who is against this nerf supported, or wanted, or even asked for, the speed nerf. I did none of those things, nor did anyone in my corp, or (that I know of) anyone in the unofficialy alliance we are a part of; and I am very vocally against BOTH nerfs as unneccesary and about as game breaking as CCP turning off the servers for good. You should really stop to think before making sweaping and all-inclusive statements like that. It makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.
*
* |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |