These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

CCP's Clever Stealth Nullsec Nerf
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alexa Coates
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-04-04 19:50:03 UTC
who the **** are the hellcats

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-04-04 19:51:41 UTC
Castor II wrote:
You're an awful awful poster, you know that?


I read it through a few times, but alas I could not pry anything comprehensible from it.

No change there then.
Llyandrian
Livestock Science Exchange
#23 - 2012-04-04 20:06:29 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
who the **** are the hellcats


Wrong question, it should be ...

What the **** are Hellcats.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#24 - 2012-04-04 20:13:16 UTC
Its a ship configuration of some sort but its beyond me I don't sit on Pandemic Legion's Military Boards for naming ship fits.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Slime Slurper
Beacon Light Corporation
#25 - 2012-04-04 20:15:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Slime Slurper
While the OP....I don't know.

His complaint is valid though about fleet combat.

Reminds me of a game in the 80's called 'Starfire"

Great game of spaceship combat...even inspired several novels like "In Death Ground" and "The Shiva Option".

However, it suffered from a problem similar to Eve. It was called the "Statue of Liberty" fleet problem. Since each hex was so big you couldn't realistically put stacking penalties in the rules...gameplay involved to each player having all their ships in one hex at all times. The stack would be enormous (hence 'statue of liberty'). It detracted from an otherwise great game.
Richard Aiel
The Merchants of War
#26 - 2012-04-04 20:15:58 UTC
so whats this nerf it says in the title? all I saw in your post was your fanciful thoughts

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/SOA-3-2.jpg
Valerie Tessel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-04-04 20:25:10 UTC
Remote Shield Extenders.

For 30 seconds, I can project a 2000hp shield around a target. So can anyone else with an RSE... Now the alpha has to be timed, and so does the defense. Welcome back tactics.

Tactical destroyers... I'll take a dozen Gallente, please.
AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-04-04 20:52:06 UTC
Resource-based fights being bad?
Bro, pass that joint!
Rory Orlenard
Eve Pilots Revolutionary Army
#29 - 2012-04-04 21:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rory Orlenard
Part of controlling botters/RMTers is making them unnessesary , if isk is freely available there isn't a need of them. If you make isk valuable I will guess that they increase in numbers. That ruins the game for honest players and casual players not willing to spend real money to buy isk.
I believe the valuable commodity in Eve should be the character skills - time can not be manipulated , exploited or multiboxed. Make isk freely available and a characters skills the controlling factor in pvp.
ElQuirko
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-04-04 22:05:51 UTC
I agree with CCP.

Battleships should be rare. Why else do you think the majority of tech 2 (and even tech 3) ships are cruisers? Because cruisers are meant to be the workhorses of combat, not battleships or battlecruisers. Battleships were originally intended to be a rare occurrence, maybe 10 or so in a 300 man fleet - capital ships were supposed to be seen once every few fights, not being completely replaced by gigantic supercapital blobs.

Dodixie > Hek
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#31 - 2012-04-04 22:06:36 UTC
Rory Orlenard wrote:
I believe the valuable commodity in Eve should be the character skills - time can not be manipulated , exploited or multiboxed. Make isk freely available and a characters skills the controlling factor in pvp.

The problem being that skills accumulate over time, and are never lost. And beyond a certain point, they are worthless. I have a few characters which are max skilled in the ships they fly. These are the common PvP ships, my characters will never get any better at flying them. ISK on the other hand can be lost, and will be lost over time for any active player.

Also, whilst SP cannot be exploited or manipulated, it can be bought via illegal character trading sites or the character bazaar. It also can be muli-boxed in a sense, due to multiple accounts I'm currently training multiple characters to pilot multiple different ships perfectly.

Rory Orlenard wrote:
Part of controlling botters/RMTers is making them unnessesary , if isk is freely available there isn't a need of them. If you make isk valuable I will guess that they increase in numbers. That ruins the game for honest players and casual players not willing to spend real money to buy isk.

If ISK is freely available then your losses have no value, already the value of ISK is pretty low for most players. Among older players it is not uncommon to have enough ISK to buy multiple supers, and even younger players really do not have to work particularly hard to get by in this game.

Personally I don't see that as a good thing. I like the idea of losses meaning something.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Marduk Nibiru
Chaos Delivery Systems
#32 - 2012-04-04 22:52:18 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Everyone talks about the economy. How it's all inflated and such. Maybe it is, but why does CCP suddenly care?

The general "problem" that the community claims we have is that people have too much isk and the market prices are too low (how is this a problem again? That just means we're all rich!).


What's funny is that I feel exactly the opposite kind of pressure. I seem to suck at making ISK. Makes ship losses really, really hurt and the prices of these ships is just going ape ****. A maelstrom cost 90mil only 2 weeks ago and now it's twice that...add .5 for 0.0 prices and holy ****! This is almost 1/2 my wallet for just the hull. Luckily I'm in a good alliance with solid SRP, but still....heavy investment.

Cost of being a weekend warrior I guess.
Signal11th
#33 - 2012-04-04 22:53:49 UTC
Now that i think of it i'm sure too many people can afford Drakes I might ask CCP to do something about it! wait a minute....

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-04-04 23:10:39 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Everyone talks about the economy. How it's all inflated and such. Maybe it is, but why does CCP suddenly care?

The general "problem" that the community claims we have is that people have too much isk and the market prices are too low (how is this a problem again? That just means we're all rich!).

I figured it out today.

Nullsec is the place where the big epic fleet battles CCP likes to advertise happen. However, real nullsec battles are much different than the trailers. In reality everyone flies the same 2 ships that are fit to alpha strike a target. This salvo fire on a single target destroys it in 1 hit before the enemy logistics can react.

This is an extremely effective and I believe very realistic way to fight in space. However, everyone seems to think that it is boring and removes all skill from the fleet. People say that it reduces target calling to alphabetical order and fleet member skill to lock and F1.

CCP wants to get rid of Hellcats and other similar fleet compositions because of the stark contrast between the harsh realities of nullsec and what trailers such as Dominion say.

This is why they want everyone to have less isk and/or more expensive ships. They want battleships to become rare again so that hellcat fleets cannot be economically feasible. Players are being punished for being creative and good at the game so that the trailers match the game, instead of the trailers reflecting what the game is actually like.

Save the hellcats!
Save your wallets!


What? In the battle I was in last night we had three different fleet doctrines rolling.

1 Drakefleet
1 Sniper T3 BC fleet
1 AHAC fleet

Our enemies regularly field everything from Tengu's to Hellcats, and given even numbers can "Hang" with the Alpha doctrine we generally use for mainfleet work.

You literally have no clue what you are talking about, there is FAR more diversity in fleet comp ~right now~ than there was two years ago when I first started playing.
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-04-05 00:30:28 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Now that i think of it i'm sure too many people can afford Drakes I might ask CCP to do something about it! wait a minute....


Given all the nerfs theyve been getting id think they would be worth less


Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.
Vyl Vit
#36 - 2012-04-05 01:32:05 UTC
Pyrus Octavius wrote:
I give you +1 for creative thinking. -1 for the improper use of a Tin Foil Hat.
Your tinfoil hat requirements are murder. MURDER, I tell yah!

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-04-05 01:48:59 UTC
Alpha/focus-fire tactics are wholly unrealistic. They stem from several things:
-Overly powerful remote reps
-No 'terrain'. Anyone can shoot anyone. No need to have formations, mixed fleet composition, or get inside the enemy blob
-No line of sight. Blobs would have a huge risk of shooting friendlies.

There's a whole bunch more reasons, but I won't get into them. Alpha/focus fire tactics aren't used in ground, sea, or air warfare. Past or present. Realistically, space would be the same.

Also, it isn't fun or marketable.

Finally, CCP want to get rid of alpha/focus-fire, so deal with it.
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-04-05 01:55:05 UTC
@OP Please go study some economics, then come back.

If people have less money, ships WILL cost less money. Not only because the deamnd is lower, but because the mineral prices will also go down, making the ships easier to build.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-04-05 03:16:36 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
@OP Please go study some economics, then come back.

If people have less money, ships WILL cost less money. Not only because the deamnd is lower, but because the mineral prices will also go down, making the ships easier to build.


No. If people have less money ships will cost more because the minerals are harder to extract.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-04-05 03:26:50 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
@OP Please go study some economics, then come back.

If people have less money, ships WILL cost less money. Not only because the deamnd is lower, but because the mineral prices will also go down, making the ships easier to build.


No. If people have less money ships will cost more because the minerals are harder to extract.

Huh?
Previous page123Next page