These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Tactical Guidance Ship Tech 2 Battlecruisers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#21 - 2012-09-08 18:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
Shiroh Yatamii wrote:
Are you kidding me? "Rifters Online"? Have you looked at a major nullsec battle report? I hardly see a bunch of frigates. What you will see is a bunch of capships and quite a lot of battleships.

We "wreak" reek of anti-cap sentiment because yes, it is one-sided. In favor of caps. Nullsec warfare has become a matter of "who has the most caps?" rather than who can deploy a well-balanced, organized fleet of competent people.


Post with your main... otherwise I'm just going to continue thinking of you as just another few months old rifter hobo wannabe alt with no isk and a chip on his shoulder... hoping to grind an axe because he can't play with the big boys.

And if that is your main.... then I'm gonna start laughing because you are not qualified to moan about caps at all.....




Capitals today are nigh useless against sub capitals (bcs and down) thanks largely to XL turret tracking nerfs, the sheer lack of hull options and bonuses for Dreads and carriers and lets not forget.... the poor defenseless hobos in their frigates who demand not to get popped by fighter drones for attacking a ship 100 times their size, cost, mass and threat level... and then you still moan about them. because people can field them in numbers.

Those damn annoying 2 year olds that you always see and hear throwing tantrums in malls because mommy doesn't want to buy them what they want.... That's you crying about ships your not flying.

Isn't it bad enough you only get a choice between 1 dread hull and 1 carrier hull per faction? Forcing you to blob more of them to garner any real benefit in a giant fleet... like the ones you supposedly fly in...... and isn't it surprising... that they blob them... if Eve only had Drakes.... then you'll know exactly what I'm on about. The sheer lack of choice and roles for capitals has forced the evolution of capital ship warfare in eve to become a numbers game. Surprise surprise... that's what your crying over.

Then a gem like the OP comes along and proposes yet another nerf-o-matic win button for sub capitals that will prevent, alongside the already pre-existing anti-cyno mechanics and tactics in the game, capital ships from moving around at all, in addition to not being able to dish out damage on your hulls directly.

And every anti-capital capsuleer hops on the band wagon. Sad.

If this OP were truly unbiased... we wouldnt just see modules preventing capital jump drives from working with dark Voodoo magic faggotry.... we would also see modules preventing the small ships from using stargates.

Travel imbargos all round or no travel imbargos at all.

Which brings us back to the sheer one sidedness of this proposal and its fascist supporters.




Dont get me wrong. I'm all for Capital jump drive interdiction. But this manifestation is fail as it gives more power to sub capitals... yet again.

If this ship hull was a t2 dread or a t2 carrier... I would fully endorse it and ****;... I'd even support a grid wide range for this anti-jumpdrive madness.

Alas.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar
#22 - 2012-09-08 19:58:04 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:

Post with your main... otherwise I'm just going to continue thinking of you as just another few months old rifter hobo wannabe alt with no isk and a chip on his shoulder... hoping to grind an axe because he can't play with the big boys.

And if that is your main.... then I'm gonna start laughing because you are not qualified to moan about caps at all.....


Fine, posting on main. You're ******* stupid if you think all characters above a certain SP limit MUST fly capships. Some of us prefer smaller ships. That doesn't mean we're not "playing with the big boys". Or did you forget how your precious capital ship needs BC support at times?


Asuka Solo wrote:

Capitals today are nigh useless against sub capitals (bcs and down) thanks largely to XL turret tracking nerfs, the sheer lack of hull options and bonuses for Dreads and carriers and lets not forget.... the poor defenseless hobos in their frigates who demand not to get popped by fighter drones for attacking a ship 100 times their size, cost, mass and threat level... and then you still moan about them. because people can field them in numbers.

"Poor defenseless hobos"? I do not expect or even want frigates to be able to tank fighters. That's not what the post is about. Either learn how to read or shut up. This post is a proposal (not a demand) for a new T2 BC that would cynojam either a small area or for a very small amount of time. Or both.


Asuka Solo wrote:


Those damn annoying 2 year olds that you always see and hear throwing tantrums in malls because mommy doesn't want to buy them what they want.... That's you crying about ships your not flying.



Stop acting so indignant over theorycrafting and treat others with some degree of respect if you want to be taken seriously. It would appear to be you who is throwing the tantrum, not anyone else.


Asuka Solo wrote:

Isn't it bad enough you only get a choice between 1 dread hull and 1 carrier hull per faction? Forcing you to blob more of them to garner any real benefit in a giant fleet... like the ones you supposedly fly in...... and isn't it surprising... that they blob them... if Eve only had Drakes.... then you'll know exactly what I'm on about. The sheer lack of choice and roles for capitals has forced the evolution of capital ship warfare in eve to become a numbers game. Surprise surprise... that's what your crying over.


This proposal would mitigate the numbers game for an incredibly short period of time (five to ten minutes, as I've very repeatedly stated and you've ignored) or over a small area (on-grid). Or both. This would actually add more flexibility in for capships, allowing them to engage in scenarios where they would otherwise fear retaliation from enemy caps, because the cynojam ship would delay such a retaliation.


Asuka Solo wrote:

Then a gem like the OP comes along and proposes yet another nerf-o-matic win button for sub capitals that will prevent, alongside the already pre-existing anti-cyno mechanics and tactics in the game, capital ships from moving around at all, in addition to not being able to dish out damage on your hulls directly.

If you're so impatient you can't wait five minutes or are inconvenienced by having to warp after jumping in, I question why you're in such a strategic asset as a capship rather than a "hobo frigate".
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar
#23 - 2012-09-08 20:00:09 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:

And every anti-capital capsuleer hops on the band wagon. Sad.

If this OP were truly unbiased... we wouldnt just see modules preventing capital jump drives from working with dark Voodoo magic faggotry.... we would also see modules preventing the small ships from using stargates.

Travel imbargos all round or no travel imbargos at all.

Which brings us back to the sheer one sidedness of this proposal and its fascist supporters.


I'm basically going to ignore this sand-in-cheeks amount of rage. I am glad you've known me for a number of years and have determined both my sexual orientation and political views. GG, GG.


Asuka Solo wrote:

Dont get me wrong. I'm all for Capital jump drive interdiction. But this manifestation is fail as it gives more power to sub capitals... yet again.

If this ship hull was a t2 dread or a t2 carrier... I would fully endorse it and ****;... I'd even support a grid wide range for this anti-jumpdrive madness.

Alas.


I'm actually not too opposed to this alternative. It would finally give us T2 versions of capship hulls, and a T2 capship preventing other capships from jumping in makes sense.
Jon Marburg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-09-08 21:57:12 UTC
I like this idea, but it definitely needs more testing and discussion before we come anywhere close to seeing it in game.

System-wide has the potential to be overpowered, as well as being a grief mechanic. I agree with a previous poster that grid-wide cyno interdiction would be a much better option. It should have similar "bubble" mechanics to HICs, i.e. no RR while interdiction is active and a decent tank to help last through a cycle.

Some additional features may improve its balancing:

  • Lock ship in place and create a beacon in space for the duration of the cycle
  • The cycle time should be extremely limited (~1 minute) and should only have the capacity to carry 5 minutes worth of fuel
  • It doesn't prevent jumping to already active cynos, but prevents cynos from being activated in its vicinity
  • Maybe add a skill that dictates cyno interdiction range (1-5 AU)
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#25 - 2012-09-09 13:47:07 UTC
Jon Marburg wrote:
I
Some additional features may improve its balancing:


  • Lock ship in place and create a beacon in space for the duration of the cycle
  • The cycle time should be extremely limited (~1 minute) and should only have the capacity to carry 5 minutes worth of fuel
  • It doesn't prevent jumping to already active cynos, but prevents cynos from being activated in its vicinity
  • Maybe add a skill that dictates cyno interdiction range (1-5 AU)



From these ideas it really does sound like this ship would work best as a T2 capship that cynojams enemy cap reinforcements in huge battles. A BC would simply melt if it were locked into place in a large battle, without RR to boot. In either case, I do think it should prevent jumping to already-lit cynos. Overall I like your points.
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#26 - 2012-09-09 14:49:56 UTC
I feel I should also comment on the proposed AEGIS module. I don't think that'd quite work, as the entire system by which we gain intel really needs an overhaul, rather than a band-aid. Additionally, there's no practical way to increase the dscanner's range: the ~14 AU max distance is in fact NOT arbitrary. 2,147,483,647 is the largest signed 32-bit integer value possible before it "wraps around" to -2,147,483,647. Thus if they wanted to increase the dscanner range they'd have to change the data type used when you click "Scan" from int to double. Since they'd have to go back and change the related functions for the dscanner to refer to double rather than int, it could very well end up being a pretty big overhaul for the coders. Of course, I merely speculate that the dscanner measures distance in kilometers using signed 32-bit integers, but that does seem to be the case.

So no. No dscanner buff for the foreseeable future. If they change it, it will be an overhaul entirely.
Jafit
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-09-09 23:55:28 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Shiroh Yatamii wrote:
Are you kidding me? "Rifters Online"? Have you looked at a major nullsec battle report? I hardly see a bunch of frigates. What you will see is a bunch of capships and quite a lot of battleships.

We "wreak" reek of anti-cap sentiment because yes, it is one-sided. In favor of caps. Nullsec warfare has become a matter of "who has the most caps?" rather than who can deploy a well-balanced, organized fleet of competent people.


Post with your main... otherwise I'm just going to continue thinking of you as just another few months old rifter hobo wannabe alt with no isk and a chip on his shoulder... hoping to grind an axe because he can't play with the big boys.

And if that is your main.... then I'm gonna start laughing because you are not qualified to moan about caps at all.....




Capitals today are nigh useless against sub capitals (bcs and down) thanks largely to XL turret tracking nerfs, the sheer lack of hull options and bonuses for Dreads and carriers and lets not forget.... the poor defenseless hobos in their frigates who demand not to get popped by fighter drones for attacking a ship 100 times their size, cost, mass and threat level... and then you still moan about them. because people can field them in numbers.

Those damn annoying 2 year olds that you always see and hear throwing tantrums in malls because mommy doesn't want to buy them what they want.... That's you crying about ships your not flying.

Isn't it bad enough you only get a choice between 1 dread hull and 1 carrier hull per faction? Forcing you to blob more of them to garner any real benefit in a giant fleet... like the ones you supposedly fly in...... and isn't it surprising... that they blob them... if Eve only had Drakes.... then you'll know exactly what I'm on about. The sheer lack of choice and roles for capitals has forced the evolution of capital ship warfare in eve to become a numbers game. Surprise surprise... that's what your crying over.

Then a gem like the OP comes along and proposes yet another nerf-o-matic win button for sub capitals that will prevent, alongside the already pre-existing anti-cyno mechanics and tactics in the game, capital ships from moving around at all, in addition to not being able to dish out damage on your hulls directly.

And every anti-capital capsuleer hops on the band wagon. Sad.

If this OP were truly unbiased... we wouldnt just see modules preventing capital jump drives from working with dark Voodoo magic faggotry.... we would also see modules preventing the small ships from using stargates.

Travel imbargos all round or no travel imbargos at all.

Which brings us back to the sheer one sidedness of this proposal and its fascist supporters.




Dont get me wrong. I'm all for Capital jump drive interdiction. But this manifestation is fail as it gives more power to sub capitals... yet again.

If this ship hull was a t2 dread or a t2 carrier... I would fully endorse it and ****;... I'd even support a grid wide range for this anti-jumpdrive madness.

Alas.


tl;dr:
I can't kill frigates while using my fighters or XL turrets
Therefore cynojammers are a bad idea.
And I'm mad

Also... ... elipses... ... and... 'imbargos' isn't a... word
Previous page12