Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 00:59:00 -
[241]
Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
|
Removal Tool
Eternal Perseverance
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 02:34:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Removal Tool on 15/01/2009 02:35:10
Quote: it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
:
High quality abuse has my respect
|
SasRipper
DIE WITH HONOUR
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 03:05:00 -
[243]
Edited by: SasRipper on 15/01/2009 03:18:24
In my time in the game ive always went for the flavour of the month
Torp ravens Gank geddons Nos domis Nano domi Plated gank mega Hotdropping :P
But the falcon was the one I left out & its been the flavour of the year
I agree with Gneeznow that solo/small gang pvp has become a falcon feast And the fact why it has become so is not the ship itself but the mechanics be hide it.
Now traditionally when soloing or going around in a small gang in lowsec / 0.0 the gang has been comprised of tank , gank & tackle with everyone fit s for under scam range. Now to each of the above FOTM there has been a simple addition to any small gang to give them a chance.
Add : damps Tracking disrupting Passive tank Captor/ rapier damps Kiting Cyno /mwd
These counters could easy be added to a gang or the fight avoided though scouts & scanners.
The falcon however due to its ability to cloak makes avoidance while roaming extremely difficult.
Another factor which makes the falcon so effective vs small gangs is range unlike the above examples of FOTM they all sat around scam range giving the small gang a chance to counter.
However I know of no small gang (until falcons) that carry a specific ship to counter e.g. sniper apoc or nano based damp ship. Even with a counter due to the falcons range it makes no commitment to a fight thus making it very hard to kill. Its risk outweighs the reward! ThereÆs very little risk in flying a falcon vs say a scorp.
Moving on with range no other recon which is effective at 150k+ the rest requires around 45k drones webs scams etc. Yet they all have an obscene base range of 100k + probably someoneÆs idea of balance. This base lock range + the falcons optimal range bonus means a single sensor booster is more than enough & with there high scan res, theirs only a need for 1 sensor booster leaving 6 slots free for jammers just as strong as the rooks at the same range! this makes the rook obsolete.
Now the simplest solution is to bring the falcon to the same range as the other recons ie 45k scrap its optimal bonus. Bring into a range where a gang can shoot back at it & giving the rook a role.
Alternatively the jamming system itself could be revised as it is majorly flawed chrisss0r pointed out one major flaw it in. However there is one much more major flaw the 30sec unbreakable timer 30sec is more than enough for a carrier to align & warp. Add in locking time vs a bs or bc & they will have fully reped an active tank by the time you get a lock. Now most small fights only last 30 secs to 1min so 1 jam cycle and you have lost anyway. My proposal to the whole jamming system would be possibly be the most radical change suggested to jamming.
The ECM burst in my opinion a great idea breaks there lock gives you enough time to warp out. If projected ecm was to follow the same example ie no 20sec cycle just the lock time with an appropriate countdown on the module. This would mean a skilled falcon pilot could still disrupt a gang enough to severely reduce their dps or allow there gang m8s to warp off or if coupled with damps could surely disrupt any gang.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 04:52:00 -
[244]
Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
This.
I've been trying to explain but people just don't listen. They think their 1st grade math is enough for this thread. I guess a pwnt is in order here. |
Gneeznow
Minmatar Cruoris Seraphim
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 05:35:00 -
[245]
Originally by: chrisss0r
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
this is a very good post and it hits the nail on the head, when you cycle your jammers like this you can easily take 3 targets out of a fight, by having autorepeat off, and manually applying ecm to each target and awaiting the result, and if it doesnt work you can add another ecm until success, the practical ramifications of this in small gang or solo pvp is 1 falcon, can cycle anywhere between 2 to 4 ships into submission at any given time.
This is crippling for solo / skirmish warfare pvp, when its just you and your mates roaming around in cheap ships like cruisers, battlecruisers or frigates / assault ship fit for standard close range fighting sub 30km, there is no counter to a falcon at 120 to 170km, when one appears at range its time to bail.
|
Jack Farseer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 08:10:00 -
[246]
Having read through the thread I notice a few things: - People wanting a change to ECM (And/or Falcons) are generally very constructive, willing to discuss alternatives, tries to be reasonable even though they are not always right or their ideas functional. - People who oppose a change to ECM and/or Falcons tend to generally move directly to name-calling, hair-pulling, ridicule of others, petty attempts to flame and troll and little else. - Many are asking for a new way of thinking entirely when it comes to ECM, allowing it to be equally balanced and functional on all levels of PvP battles from small gangs to large fleets. They get accused for crying nerf. - Many are asking for ECCM to be looked at to make it more viable as a way to balance gameplay. They get accused for crying nerf. - Constructive ideas with well defined problem analysis and suggestions on possible fixes are met with "whaaaaaaambulance"-remarks instead of constructive feedback and arguments. - The two most popular power-tools seem to be to accuse another of being a nerf-cryer and for wanting to change the game to change to fit the individual's prefered game style. Whether or not such remarks are true or not seem less important than the fact that the accusations primarily seems to be used in order to take away the worth of the accused opinions because they don't fit with the accuser's own.
Conclusion: If enough players thinks there is a problem with something, there is a problem. That doesn't mean it has to change or is a problem in the eyes of the developers, but the right to express it and discuss it and to have an opinion on it should be every player's right. To attack the player on a personal level for having an opinion is merely bullying and the kind of behaviour one can only expect in sandboxes among four year olds, and on Internet forums. However, those who actually have a say on the matter, game developers for instance, will only even bother to read the posts made by constructive and respectful members and completely ignore the myriad of trolls who roam the forums.
Also: This post may be considered trolling by many as well. Well then, so be it. At least I didn't tell you you were an idiot. If you felt targeted, however, maybe there is a reason.
About my own opinion on the subject? I think looking at slightly increasing the effectiveness of ECCM:s will increase their use and automatically balance things. No nerf needed.
----------------------------------------------- It's just a game - But so is life! |
Rordan D'Kherr
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 08:21:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Jack Farseer Conclusion: If enough players thinks there is a problem with something, there is a problem. That doesn't mean it has to change or is a problem in the eyes of the developers, but the right to express it and discuss it and to have an opinion on it should be every player's right.
Agreed. But you have to force every player to read this forum and participate then. Otherwise you have a small group of people claiming they are "all".
The right to express opinions is abused here by making 1000 threads about the same topic just to simulate majority (=lobbyism, spin doctoring, whatever). |
Jack Farseer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 08:29:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr
Originally by: Jack Farseer Conclusion: If enough players thinks there is a problem with something, there is a problem. That doesn't mean it has to change or is a problem in the eyes of the developers, but the right to express it and discuss it and to have an opinion on it should be every player's right.
Agreed. But you have to force every player to read this forum and participate then. Otherwise you have a small group of people claiming they are "all".
The right to express opinions is abused here by making 1000 threads about the same topic just to simulate majority (=lobbyism, spin doctoring, whatever).
Yes and no. Developers are not ignorant to this effect. No matter how many posts or how many opinions are aired, this is still no voting democracy. Game developers do whatever they want. Whether they follow their own vision or listen to their players is up to them, but they know exactly how many of the players (or rather how extremely few) who are active on the forum. What they CAN get from the forum, however, are good ideas. That is why constructive posting is so important. It only takes ONE really good and thought through, well posted, idea to change the game in a way that ten thousands of "STFU you nerf lowing fracktard" will ever do. Posting the same subject over and over and over is not as much a method to create change as it is a symptom of a problem not being adressed.
----------------------------------------------- It's just a game - But so is life! |
burek
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 09:23:00 -
[249]
Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Very good post my man. I don't see how anyone could refute this. With logic of course. There is always memes and name calling available.
Most of the ecm/falcon defenders seem to be the blobbers who have never been out of their "small" gang of 40+ (lol) or God forbid, solo. They just don't get it. Just like they also don't see the current agility problem... but that's for another thread. |
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 09:41:00 -
[250]
Originally by: burek
I don't see how anyone could refute this. With logic of course. There is always memes and name calling available.
The meme I would use are facts. Please give some numbers and the reason why they change anything in jamming probability. I can't see the point. Is there one? |
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 10:34:00 -
[251]
Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
The number of free Jammers is really the key, the smaller the scale of the fight the more powerful a falcon becomes.
I suppose CCP could make the duration of a jam stick to the target whether or not it was successful preventing other Jam attempts until it's expired but the ECM ships really would need a proper tank in return.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:11:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 11:12:24
Originally by: chrisss0r What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Very true. A further calculation is required to calculate the chances of locking someone down for a certain amount of time, but to get accurate figures to work from would require that someone record accurate statistics for jamming attempts over the course of several minutes at least, preferably several days to get the most accurate results.
If anyone wishes to, these figures would prove incredibly useful in discussions surrounding ECM.
Quote: The meme I would use are facts. Please give some numbers and the reason why they change anything in jamming probability.
There's a reason why the calculations haven't been done - see above. - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness! |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:17:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 11:26:04
Originally by: chrisss0r
it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
Do try to chill a little, ppl do actually know how jammers work.
Do you really think ppl do not understand that if a falcon has Multiple gallente jammers on it that it can jam gallente ship better?. Of course a falcon with say 5 or 6 gallente jammers will get more activations against a gallente ship or ships due to it being specialized, but that also makes the falcon very limited in its ability against all the other races.
But if i can just nudge you back to reality the fact is that most falcons/ecm ships have only 1 of each racial fitted or maybe 2 of a certain race, so while the math is obvious the reality in eve makes it as worthless as lyrias ideas about thousands of solo gallente BS charging around TQ....
|
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:23:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
There's a reason why the calculations haven't been done - see above.
No numbers - no point. Nice try though, everyone. |
Dracira Dracc
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:27:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Rennion Falcons make me sad :(
Whats the point of playing when playing consists of spending hours finding a fight, warp in to the fight, get jammed, twiddle thumbs, die.
This is what ****es solo/small gangers off, you spend ****ing hours finding a decent fight and then you can't actualy have that fight because you get jammed into the stoneage.
Oh, thats PvP and you just want a "i win button" - have you tried a missile boat with Fire and Forget Missiles? |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:50:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 11:50:36
Quote:
No numbers - no point. Nice try though, everyone.
The numbers on pure jam chance are posted further back in this thread, but the true statistical probability of jam attempts over a period of time (say 60 or 120 seconds) cannot be calculated accurately using simple averages and require the bayesian method as one poster stated. To apply the bayesian method, we would require detailed statistics of jamming attempts over several hours of combat - data we do not have, so calculations that we cannot currently do.
Go away and bring me back records of your jamming success/failure rate for a sample ship type and we can further this line of conversation. Until then, it's a moot point.
Quote: The method to not waste jammers on already jammed ships does not prove ECM is overpowered in any way. Nor does it magically enhance jamming chances, something you guys are obviously suggesting.
Noone (sane) is suggesting anything of the sort, but until we have all the data required we cannot give accurate figures, only anecdotal evidence. |
Anvalor
Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:58:00 -
[257]
First all these falcons got on my nerves but then i realized i had to adapt. So now i do not really have problems with falcons anymore ( i fly one myself now ) .
And if we see a gang with 3-5 falcons incoming we either just do not fight them or we play the station huging game. It is funny how those gangs start whining about docking games when they bring 3 or more falcons.
The only way to change things in eve is when many people are flying the same ships or use the same gameplay like with nanoships, nosdomis, multispectral and dampener mods fitted on each ship. all these things got changed after many people used them. So do not resist anymore and train for falcons.
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:01:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Anvalor
The only way to change things in eve is when many people are flying the same ships or use the same gameplay like with nanoships, nosdomis, multispectral and dampener mods fitted on each ship. all these things got changed after many people used them. So do not resist anymore and train for falcons.
And what do we change when eventually all we have left is people flying simple tank and spank setups?
|
Anvalor
Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:05:00 -
[259]
Jonas i think you should read harder. I did not say i want to change anything. I fly falcons myself now. I just gave an advice to the guys who want to change anything.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:07:00 -
[260]
Quote: And what do we change when eventually all we have left is people flying simple tank and spank setups?
That was already addressed: Reduction in resistance levels & stacking penalties on resistances modules, tracking modules, damage modules etc. - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness! |
|
Pac SubCom
A.W.M
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:09:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Until then, it's a moot point.
The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around.
For instance, if the jamming probability of a single jammer is 30%, the Bayesian method does not convert this into 100% on one ship + 30% on a second with two jammers, and this is what I suspect he wants to say. If I win the lottery, this doesn't mean the probability to win is 100%. --------------- ∞ TQFE
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:12:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Anvalor Jonas i think you should read harder. I did not say i want to change anything. I fly falcons myself now. I just gave an advice to the guys who want to change anything.
And equally I think you need to read harder as I don't believe I stated you wanted to change anything. I just asked a question.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:18:00 -
[263]
Quote: The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around.
Indeed, the point here being that you can't calculate the chance to jam someone for three cycles by taking the cube of the chance to jam for a single cycle, especially given that this is not how most people use ECM jammers. It's here that the bayesian method is required to give accurate probabilities, and the idea being put forward is that it would demonstrate a higher probability than a simple averages calculation would. I don't have the data and nor do I have the inclination to do the maths even if I did, and so I'm forced to take that assesment at face value until someone does the leg work.
Either way, I still think that changing ECM to a single scriptable module, boosting the overall strength by 50% and reducing it's efficacy in multiple target situations as per my post linked below is the simplest, cleanest and easiest "solution" to implement. |
Anvalor
Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:26:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Originally by: Anvalor Jonas i think you should read harder. I did not say i want to change anything. I fly falcons myself now. I just gave an advice to the guys who want to change anything.
And equally I think you need to read harder as I don't believe I stated you wanted to change anything. I just asked a question.
Well then you asked the wrong person. When you ask me what do we change it looks like you asume i want to change something. I do not care what we do change i will just adapt like allways. And now let the nerds continue with their math discussion. |
Vampasha
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:43:00 -
[265]
Falcon beats Falcon btw. -------------- I am Zsa Zsa of Borg. Prepare to be assimilated dahling |
Balendin
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:46:00 -
[266]
wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!!
|
Balendin
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:47:00 -
[267]
LOSERS... Friggin LOSERS. YOU KNOW the big "L" whiners whiners whiners, LOSERS. |
Anvalor
Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:51:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Balendin wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!!
See what all you guys just did ? I told you not to talk to loud or the baby will wake up. Now you have done it.
Where are my earplugs ... |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 12:54:00 -
[269]
Quote: wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!!
Good sir, I think you might just have got a little sand stuck in your vagina. |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:00:00 -
[270]
Quote: wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!!
Actually this is a good summary of all 30 (?) ECM / Falcon threads in the last days... You could modifiy it a bit and use it to sum up Amarr threads aswell. Or Missile threads. Or "insert whine topic here*.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |