These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aryndel Vyst
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#681 - 2011-12-12 18:59:41 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:

1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't!
I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!

Funny... a cursory glance through some recent pages shows these posts:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=468876#post468876
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=472485#post472485
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400642#post400642
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=487642#post487642
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427970#post427970
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=416940#post416940
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400592#post400592

All from people offering reasoning or alternatives to make supercaps less effective versus subcaps.

Just because you're fantastic at selective reading and skimming over other peoples' reasons does not mean that they don't exist. Please note that this next part is not for your attention, as I know you will just skim over it and handwave my points away without providing any logical reasoning.
Feel free to skip over it and mash the reply button to hurriedly post something about how terrible goons are because they don't understand complicated things like capitals and fighting without 10,000 ships in a fleet.

EVE has always been balanced in a rock>scissors>paper fashion where one ship or fleet style is always effective against another, and is in turn weak against something else. In some cases this is done by letting people fit the same ship for different roles, but not for all of its roles at the same time (see: RR/drone Dominix vs Sentry Dominix vs max-dps blaster Dominix, etc). Supercaps, like any other ship in EVE, need to have a weakness.

1. Supercarriers bringing both bombers and fighters at the same time let them fight both capitals and sub-capitals at the same time. A smaller fighter bay forces a trade-off between the ability to fight capitals or sub-capitals, but not both roles at full effectiveness at once.

2. A large fighter bay means that even if they don't pack both kinds, it is alot of redundancy and severely restricts the tactical option for an opposing sub-cap fleet to engage them by killing off drones. It's one thing to destroy 40 fighter/bombers on a single supercarrier, it's completely another thing for them to destroy 4,000 on 100 supercarriers.
A skilled stealth- or smart-bombing run on a poorly managed supercap fleet can cause a significant reduction in their damage, and that's exactly how EVE should be. Punishing one side for a mistake and rewarding the other for a successful and well-executed idea. If the supercarriers could just launch another few thousand drones and continue as-is it would severely diminish this hard counter, no matter how well it was pulled off.

3. Due to ISK inflation, supercaps have effectively reached the status that regular caps were in 4-5 years ago. Powerblocs need a fleet of them to compete in any serious territorial fashion. And if you cast your mind back to 2006, an alliance that deployed capitals without proper support deserved to lose them. The reasons above mean that a supercap fleet needs a respectable support fleet to counter sub-caps in exactly the same way.

Phunnestyle wrote:

2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.

1. Your primary point here seems to be that you're heavily biased against my ingame faction, and that this is a valid basis to balance ships upon. I assume pointing out that you're posting under an NPC corp alt would be lost on you, as you clearly don't want to discuss any possible history of your own alliance and what they may have done in the past.

2. If you're talking about this fight, the ships were reimbursed by a GM after we were hotdropped by ev0ke lighting multiple cyno's under our online jammer. The GM was even nice enough to rep all our POS mods too!
Perhaps we'd lose less supercaps in that way if only we stopped fighting people with magical Cheetahs and infinite ferrogel...

Phunnestyle wrote:

P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further ammendments & benificial balancing, please do know what your blabbing on about b4 you waffle.

*waves away other persons post as 'old news', claims to talk about balancing despite posting nothing of content aside from personal bias*

Heh. You don't work for Fox News, do you?


I agree with this completely. Good post.
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#682 - 2011-12-13 09:00:44 UTC
Venustas Blue wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully.


His arguements arn't just his, they are alot of peoples arguements and common sence.
I mean what are you trying to point out Svennig, your comments have always seemed kinda mehhh.



LOL!

Hello Phunnestyle's alt. You consistently misspell words, such as when you write "sence", "arguement" and "alot". If you're going to fake popular support for your ideas by making lots of "I support Phunnestyle, he's a cool guy and I worship him and his opinions", you need to take an extra couple of minutes to make it less unbelievably staggeringly goddamn obvious it's you
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#683 - 2011-12-13 09:53:15 UTC
Svennig wrote:
Venustas Blue wrote:
Svennig wrote:
Keep spamming phunnestyle. I'm sure being an annoying ass will do loads to make CCP consider your argument carefully.


His arguements arn't just his, they are alot of peoples arguements and common sence.
I mean what are you trying to point out Svennig, your comments have always seemed kinda mehhh.



LOL!

Hello Phunnestyle's alt. You consistently misspell words, such as when you write "sence", "arguement" and "alot". If you're going to fake popular support for your ideas by making lots of "I support Phunnestyle, he's a cool guy and I worship him and his opinions", you need to take an extra couple of minutes to make it less unbelievably staggeringly goddamn obvious it's you

I thought that guy did have a Phunnestyle of posting...

ba dum tish
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#684 - 2011-12-13 19:27:41 UTC
cough chimera cough
MastahFR
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#685 - 2011-12-13 19:40:38 UTC
Can we get the troll post removed from here ? They have no purpose here.

And we (shield capitals and super capitals (especially the Hel pilots)) are waiting on CCP feedback on when the change will hit singularity.
Also, CCP, we (Hel pilots) are still waiting on the re-balance you promised. It's been already too long that this ship has been useless, it's now the time to end that and make it worth his 14bil isk hull price.
Xtover
Cold Moon Destruction.
#686 - 2011-12-13 20:21:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Xtover
Phunnestyle wrote:
I have posted with My main, if having a alliance & name is really that important to you, then your free to guess wich toon it is. I have no need or intention of saying!


No, you're a chickenshit scared on being called out on your own history. You can go after others who post with their main but you're scared- likely because you've shown nothing but complete and total idiocy and you are an embarassment to your corp and alliance.

God I hope you're not in mine.

Quote:
What you've done there is right an aweful lot, but mean very little, dissapointment is felt by myself!
Thought you would actually talk the talk rather than as has been done by your pall Vincent & a few others, just chat aimless LOLness.
So the links you gave where links to comments wich are objective to the Ammendment to the Supers drone bay of 20 FBs & 20 Fighters, & according to you these arguements if you can really call them that, where supposed to be valid where they LOL, so when a horde of other people explained away there pathetic objections, showing why the Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20/20 that also ment nothing to you ofc LOL. You didn't happen to see those particular multitude of comments did you, basically you have to read loads of valid comments to get to the rubbish your refering to,so please read!
What you have evidently failed to realise is every single one of those pathetic objections E.G. Vincents where absolute & utter rubbish, in all comments against the ammendment, they could not give a valid reason for why Supers shouldn't have a manditory drone bay of 20/20. & they all ended up looking more ignorant than when they started there stubborn process of troll quality posts.
All they could do was make fail comments like "your still in the mindset that Supers are Solopwnmobiles" by your buddy Vincent.
If this trash is what you think is supposed to hold water then you are worse than the few other idiots that thought they where in the right on this matter. All you are is the latest noob to say Supers shouldn't have the ammendment to the drone bay,but yet again without a valid reason.

Your so called valid reason now consists of waffling on about how we want thousands of drones ROFL hell you must have triple sight so the numbers look longer than they actually are.

We justly ask for the Ammendment of room for (20 fighter bombers & 20 Fighters) this may look like thousands to you ROFL but it damn sure is room for 40 total for the rest of us. Id ask what your smoking if I was a junkie.



You sound like a broken record, as if you're copying and pasting the same things over and over.

There's nothing "manditory"
There's no reason for you to field 20 fighters/bombers other than you're still stuck in the mindset of having an overpowered ship.
You have already stated several times in this thread the reason you are against the changes is because you're afraid of getting stuck by a small gang and killed while alone. Tough.



Yes, a bomber can take out your fighters or drones, if you let them. Listen close, junior: In a subcap you can lose all your DPS much, much easier and I will spell it out for you:

1) ECM
2) Disruption
3) Neut
4) Damp
5) Speed/tracking
6) Range


And much, much more.

Using your broken, pathetic logic, we should remove ALL OF THOSE measures that can remove a ship's offensive DPS.


Oh, did I mention your super can't be damped or jammed?

Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abaddon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!
Isbariya
State War Academy
Caldari State
#687 - 2011-12-13 20:59:59 UTC
Xtover wrote:


Oh, did I mention your super can't be neuted, damped or jammed?

Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abbadon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!



Oh, we can't be neuted, well guess then it's realy better if we don't get 20/20 dronebay

/sarkasm off

We can be neuted and though I don't like it, it's good that way. BUT, we need the larger drone bay, ffs CCP why is it so hard for you to answer in this thread when you answer every single other thread that's out there ...
I don't think it's that of an complex situation.
At least give us a heads up ....
Xtover
Cold Moon Destruction.
#688 - 2011-12-13 22:23:33 UTC
Isbariya wrote:
Xtover wrote:


Oh, did I mention your super can't be neuted, damped or jammed?

Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abbadon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!



Oh, we can't be neuted, well guess then it's realy better if we don't get 20/20 dronebay

/sarkasm off

We can be neuted and though I don't like it, it's good that way. BUT, we need the larger drone bay, ffs CCP why is it so hard for you to answer in this thread when you answer every single other thread that's out there ...
I don't think it's that of an complex situation.
At least give us a heads up ....
why do you need it.
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#689 - 2011-12-13 23:51:23 UTC
MastahFR wrote:
Can we get the troll post removed from here ? They have no purpose here.

And we (shield capitals and super capitals (especially the Hel pilots)) are waiting on CCP feedback on when the change will hit singularity.
Also, CCP, we (Hel pilots) are still waiting on the re-balance you promised. It's been already too long that this ship has been useless, it's now the time to end that and make it worth his 14bil isk hull price.


What was wrong with the Crucible changes? Thanks to the lesser shield nerf supercaps got, the Hel is basically on par with the Nyx in terms of EHP. Once they fix way shield fleet bonuses apply and add deadspace invulns it'll be fairly competitive.
Especially now that it has a better niche with more base cap for some ewar-immune remote-repping. One rep from a Hel negates more than a supercap's worth of damage on another ship with decent resists.

The Nid and Chimera could use a CPU bump though; or better yet just reduce the CPU need on CSBs and CETs by about 15%.

As for the proposed shield changes (instant fleet bonus application, deadspace invulns, etc) they were proposed in here fairly late on in the Cruicible development cycle, and as such probably haven't been started. I'd guess that we're probably going to have to wait on an intermediate content patch for them (such as Crucible 1.1 or 1.2) which puts them at least a few months away. Maybe around March if things go well.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#690 - 2011-12-14 23:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Phunnestyle
Xtover wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:
I have posted with My main, if having a alliance & name is really that important to you, then your free to guess wich toon it is. I have no need or intention of saying!


No, you're a chickenshit scared on being called out on your own history. You can go after others who post with their main but you're scared- likely because you've shown nothing but complete and total idiocy and you are an embarassment to your corp and alliance.

God I hope you're not in mine.

Quote:
What you've done there is right an aweful lot, but mean very little, dissapointment is felt by myself!
Thought you would actually talk the talk rather than as has been done by your pall Vincent & a few others, just chat aimless LOLness.
So the links you gave where links to comments wich are objective to the Ammendment to the Supers drone bay of 20 FBs & 20 Fighters, & according to you these arguements if you can really call them that, where supposed to be valid where they LOL, so when a horde of other people explained away there pathetic objections, showing why the Supers should have a manditory drone bay of 20/20 that also ment nothing to you ofc LOL. You didn't happen to see those particular multitude of comments did you, basically you have to read loads of valid comments to get to the rubbish your refering to,so please read!
What you have evidently failed to realise is every single one of those pathetic objections E.G. Vincents where absolute & utter rubbish, in all comments against the ammendment, they could not give a valid reason for why Supers shouldn't have a manditory drone bay of 20/20. & they all ended up looking more ignorant than when they started there stubborn process of troll quality posts.
All they could do was make fail comments like "your still in the mindset that Supers are Solopwnmobiles" by your buddy Vincent.
If this trash is what you think is supposed to hold water then you are worse than the few other idiots that thought they where in the right on this matter. All you are is the latest noob to say Supers shouldn't have the ammendment to the drone bay,but yet again without a valid reason.

Your so called valid reason now consists of waffling on about how we want thousands of drones ROFL hell you must have triple sight so the numbers look longer than they actually are.

We justly ask for the Ammendment of room for (20 fighter bombers & 20 Fighters) this may look like thousands to you ROFL but it damn sure is room for 40 total for the rest of us. Id ask what your smoking if I was a junkie.



You sound like a broken record, as if you're copying and pasting the same things over and over.

There's nothing "manditory"
There's no reason for you to field 20 fighters/bombers other than you're still stuck in the mindset of having an overpowered ship.
You have already stated several times in this thread the reason you are against the changes is because you're afraid of getting stuck by a small gang and killed while alone. Tough.



Yes, a bomber can take out your fighters or drones, if you let them. Listen close, junior: In a subcap you can lose all your DPS much, much easier and I will spell it out for you:

1) ECM
2) Disruption
3) Neut
4) Damp
5) Speed/tracking
6) Range


And much, much more.

Using your broken, pathetic logic, we should remove ALL OF THOSE measures that can remove a ship's offensive DPS.


Oh, did I mention your super can't be damped or jammed?

Next thing we'll have inty pilots complaining that it's possible for them to lose their ability to fight when webbed. Or maybe an Abaddon pilot complaining that a curse neuted him and he couldn't shoot. HOW UNFAIR!


ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.

& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL

No it is your logic that is evidently failing horribly.
If you would like to read some of the many reasons for why Supers should have a manditory 20/20 bay please flick through pages ,or better still bring your supers out in game for more than shooting a offline POS or structure! I no doubt you shall understand more fully after you actually fight with them lol
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#691 - 2011-12-15 00:17:32 UTC
Phunnestyle wrote:
ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.

& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL

I'm considering clicking 'Like' on your post.

Please understand that this is not because I agree with it; but because it validates my theory that you're unable to respond to someone without involuntarily dribbling in a strategic pattern upon the keyboard that resembles the post seen above.

Which, if you think about it, is a pretty special skill. You're special.
Aryndel Vyst
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#692 - 2011-12-15 00:23:42 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:

1. There has been several pages + of valid reasons from a multitude of various alliances to why the supers drone bay should be a manditory capacity for 20 Fighter Bombers & 20 Fighters & not 1 reason why there shouldn't!
I cba to summon all those valid reasons just for 1 speacial needs character! Read what has been said, so you at least don't look ignorant!

Funny... a cursory glance through some recent pages shows these posts:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=468876#post468876
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=472485#post472485
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400642#post400642
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=487642#post487642
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=427970#post427970
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=416940#post416940
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=400592#post400592

All from people offering reasoning or alternatives to make supercaps less effective versus subcaps.

Just because you're fantastic at selective reading and skimming over other peoples' reasons does not mean that they don't exist. Please note that this next part is not for your attention, as I know you will just skim over it and handwave my points away without providing any logical reasoning.
Feel free to skip over it and mash the reply button to hurriedly post something about how terrible goons are because they don't understand complicated things like capitals and fighting without 10,000 ships in a fleet.

EVE has always been balanced in a rock>scissors>paper fashion where one ship or fleet style is always effective against another, and is in turn weak against something else. In some cases this is done by letting people fit the same ship for different roles, but not for all of its roles at the same time (see: RR/drone Dominix vs Sentry Dominix vs max-dps blaster Dominix, etc). Supercaps, like any other ship in EVE, need to have a weakness.

1. Supercarriers bringing both bombers and fighters at the same time let them fight both capitals and sub-capitals at the same time. A smaller fighter bay forces a trade-off between the ability to fight capitals or sub-capitals, but not both roles at full effectiveness at once.

2. A large fighter bay means that even if they don't pack both kinds, it is alot of redundancy and severely restricts the tactical option for an opposing sub-cap fleet to engage them by killing off drones. It's one thing to destroy 40 fighter/bombers on a single supercarrier, it's completely another thing for them to destroy 4,000 on 100 supercarriers.
A skilled stealth- or smart-bombing run on a poorly managed supercap fleet can cause a significant reduction in their damage, and that's exactly how EVE should be. Punishing one side for a mistake and rewarding the other for a successful and well-executed idea. If the supercarriers could just launch another few thousand drones and continue as-is it would severely diminish this hard counter, no matter how well it was pulled off.

3. Due to ISK inflation, supercaps have effectively reached the status that regular caps were in 4-5 years ago. Powerblocs need a fleet of them to compete in any serious territorial fashion. And if you cast your mind back to 2006, an alliance that deployed capitals without proper support deserved to lose them. The reasons above mean that a supercap fleet needs a respectable support fleet to counter sub-caps in exactly the same way.

Phunnestyle wrote:

2. Your a Goon so however many Supers/Titans you sell-have,doesn't make any difference when it comes down to knowing how & when to use them. Goons are widely considered for being terrible Super/titan users & know neither how or when to use them,hence goons sold off most of there super capital fleet. Going further into explaining why your troll post means next to nothing, Goons even lose Super capitals whilst under there own Cyno jammer. Thats facts right there. Fail, not all,but majority of DC are noobs, an you wisely stick to your canes/meals comps, as DC strength does not lay in quality,it lays in mass numbers as is widely known.

1. Your primary point here seems to be that you're heavily biased against my ingame faction, and that this is a valid basis to balance ships upon. I assume pointing out that you're posting under an NPC corp alt would be lost on you, as you clearly don't want to discuss any possible history of your own alliance and what they may have done in the past.

2. If you're talking about this fight, the ships were reimbursed by a GM after we were hotdropped by ev0ke lighting multiple cyno's under our online jammer. The GM was even nice enough to rep all our POS mods too!
Perhaps we'd lose less supercaps in that way if only we stopped fighting people with magical Cheetahs and infinite ferrogel...

Phunnestyle wrote:

P.S. your links for ammendments are old news, we talk of further ammendments & benificial balancing, please do know what your blabbing on about b4 you waffle.

*waves away other persons post as 'old news', claims to talk about balancing despite posting nothing of content aside from personal bias*

Heh. You don't work for Fox News, do you?



I took some more time to mull this post over and I have to agree.
Xtover
Cold Moon Destruction.
#693 - 2011-12-15 01:10:35 UTC
Phunnestyle wrote:


ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.

& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL

No it is your logic that is evidently failing horribly.
If you would like to read some of the many reasons for why Supers should have a manditory 20/20 bay please flick through pages ,or better still bring your supers out in game for more than shooting a offline POS or structure! I no doubt you shall understand more fully after you actually fight with them lol


You remind me of someone who realizes that they have nothing left to stand on. You can'at even disagree with what I said, you instead throw out a red herring and try to change the subject.

Keep posting, I'm not sure you've gone into the "complete dumbass" category but you're getting fairly close.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#694 - 2011-12-15 17:23:59 UTC
Why are supercaps immune to warp scramblers/disruptors? Why do they deserve penalty-free, built-in warp core stabilisers? Are they supposed to be industrial ships or miners like the Mastodon or the Skiff?

Supercaps are supposed to be vulnerable to subcapitals. How do we explain to the week-old newbie in a Rifter who tries to tackle an Aeon that the supercarrier "deserves" the ability to escape?

Years ago, warp-core-stabilised PVP ships were a scourge on TQ, allowing people to avoid having to commit to fights. This was fixed by setting suitable penalties on WCS. But two classes of ships remain, possessing built-in, penalty-free WCS. Complete the purge and remove disruptor/scrambler immunity from supercaps. They neither need nor deserve it.
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#695 - 2011-12-15 23:46:19 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Why are supercaps immune to warp scramblers/disruptors? Why do they deserve penalty-free, built-in warp core stabilisers? Are they supposed to be industrial ships or miners like the Mastodon or the Skiff?


Because, just like their uses, a Super cap's death has to be planned with cunning, not just a straight DPS fight.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#696 - 2011-12-16 00:09:07 UTC
CynoNet Two wrote:
As for the proposed shield changes (instant fleet bonus application, deadspace invulns, etc) they were proposed in here fairly late on in the Cruicible development cycle, and as such probably haven't been started.


Was this proposed by players or CCP though?

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#697 - 2011-12-16 04:11:34 UTC
ccp
CynoNet Two
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#698 - 2011-12-16 08:39:42 UTC
Headerman wrote:
CynoNet Two wrote:
As for the proposed shield changes (instant fleet bonus application, deadspace invulns, etc) they were proposed in here fairly late on in the Cruicible development cycle, and as such probably haven't been started.


Was this proposed by players or CCP though?


Proposed by players in this thread, then confirmed as planned by CCP here.
Phunnestyle
Doomheim
#699 - 2011-12-16 09:50:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Phunnestyle
Xtover wrote:
Phunnestyle wrote:


ROFL like your interesting little rant about restrictions of Subcaps in comparison to Supers. Let me think ohh a BS for instance, ermm lets say 200mill with fittings relatively low SP character able to max out the use.

& then on the other hand your would like to say that becuase a cheap ship with a relatively low SP character has these particular resrictions, that a 22+ bill Super + dedicated holding toon, also with a dedicated high end SP Super pilot toon, should also share with all these resrictions. LOOOOOL

No it is your logic that is evidently failing horribly.
If you would like to read some of the many reasons for why Supers should have a manditory 20/20 bay please flick through pages ,or better still bring your supers out in game for more than shooting a offline POS or structure! I no doubt you shall understand more fully after you actually fight with them lol


You remind me of someone who realizes that they have nothing left to stand on. You can'at even disagree with what I said, you instead throw out a red herring and try to change the subject.



For some one who has very little experience & has got the majority of his kills over the last week, you seem to have an aweful lot of rubbish to say. & yet again what you say does not give any reason for why Supers should not have a drone bay of 20/20, all that you have said is " You still want Supers to be overpowered" lol Sigh, moron.... 1 of the biggest probelm with alot of people is they want everything to be easy, due to some people,evidently a few above's lack of skill & cunning & being lazy bumms,they want everything to be dumbed down & made easier for them. Tell you what get some lego an play with that instead if EVE is to challenging for you. Honestly your just pathetic....

Supers are always & should always bring benifits over Subcaps to a degree.
It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late.
The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news.
The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered to a huge degree, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.

Now I look at what you said, analysed it and came out with the conclusive result of what your implying. You said little else except for " You still want Supers to be overpowered" that really is all you said, so if we are missing some code in your writing then please go ahead & explain what more was ment to be in your rant. Your logic is flawed, people do not work in real life as well as in the game to revolve around the same restrictions. You work for benifits & progress, you skill train to gain advantages over those who do not have high end SP. Like it or not, thats how it is, tough son shine deal with it. With your logic implied, it would mean that there would be very little relivance & point of progress within the game. Alot of what EVE is about is progress, so without it, why would any1 bother to stay loyal to the game for so many years, would be end of EVE with your LOL logic being implied, well done fella, shall give you the medal of "Ohh so special Ideas" ,your pro LOOOOOOL
Roboticus420
Bomber Stelka Dva Titana
#700 - 2011-12-16 10:13:12 UTC
Phunnestyle wrote:
[quote=Xtover][quote=Phunnestyle]

For some one who has very little experience & has got the majority of his kills over the last week, you seem to have an aweful lot of rubbish to say. & yet again what you say does not give any reason for why Supers should not have a drone bay of 20/20, all that you have said is " You still want Supers to be overpowered" lol Sigh, moron.... 1 of the biggest probelm with alot of people is they want everything to be easy, due to some people,evidently a few above's lack of skill & cunning & being lazy bumms,they want everything to be dumbed down & made easier for them. Tell you what get some lego an play with that instead if EVE is to challenging for you. Honestly your just pathetic....

Supers are always & should always bring benifits over Subcaps to a degree.
It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late.
The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers straight away just by that certain change & dedicates Super capitals to the fight, all good news.
The limit to Fighter bombers & fighters, yes again great change, this coupled with the HP nerfs releaves the Super of being overpowered to a huge degree, although I still personally think that Super capitals should of had individual treatment when it came to either nerfing/buffing HP,as I see it as being to generalized, but according to some idiots you would have Supers as a hunk of scrap metal, an with your Super hatred syndrome would deny a small justice for no other reason than " You still want Supers to be overpowered" its just rediculious. I LOL@U over & over.



+1 Signed