EVE General Discussion

I'm a blobber and a metagamer and find this hilarious.

Note that it does say to deal with subcaps bring a carrier. So it seems everything is A-OK. Subcaps optional if you have carriers.

Considering you can bubble yourself defensively that doesn't work like you imagine.

Also emptying the cap of a capital ship with void bombs is ... haha, that's a good one...

But why should they put forth effort into adapting and risking assets when they can just come to forums with eyes full of tears and beg CCP to win the war for them?

The truth is no matter what changes at made, no matter the nerfs, no matter the meta. We will always find a way to have fun and more importantly; find a way to take our boot heel and smash it directly into CFCs face.

Whereas I know rocks with better qualifications than you, so it equals out.
When your companies also sign documents not to release any details about their hardware (since the same hardware is also used in military and international banking) we'll allow you to act cool.
You can watch the CCP Fanfest video explaining a little of it here.

When you get back, I expect a 6 000 character essay on how and why you're wrong, and how you're going to learn.

not saying its all of them, or indicative of their overall view.

but anyone notice how many goons HAVE posted about how the slowcat blob "prevents fun"? considering how long was it the goons primary form of warfare was fun denial?

also, hurry up with omegaderp, win or lose, i want to see some killmails.

The primary product of GSF is not Good Fights but hypocrisy.
The same with moon-money (Although they try to redeem themselves by weird claims of "advocating the nerf of it") ...
Or of course their long hatred of anything rental, and now it's the best in the world.

It's not just the degree newspeak and the organised opinion-making that is going on (Any organisation large enough will eventually embrace those), but GSF - and, to a lesser extend, the CFC as whole - is seemingly actively celebrating doublethink.
Of course, I have no access to the GSF forums or SA or anything, so it could be that it's just the carefully crafted PR front we're seeing (And the most prolific GSF posters are all on board with that), but then again Mittens is the master of it in his CEO updates, so at least some of it must happen internally as well as externally.
It intrigues me.

And enables me to feel self-righteous and superior, but let's not mention that.

Hi, can you tell me where you got your inside information on the design of Capital ships?


I mean its totally wrong since Dreads also can easily kill sub caps as well but you seem to know something about CCP's design ideas and I was wondering if you could share the notes you had on Capital ship design you took from when CCP was creating them.

For those keeping track, carriers have always been very adept at killing sub caps, back when they were rare, and you'd find one, it was a monumental effort just to stay alive around one if it was angry.

Carriers are also fairly commonly used in killing rats, which are if you hadn't noticed, also sub caps.


So, unless you have some secret design documents please stop trying to dictate what 'capitals are supposed to do', because as far as anybody can tell, they're doing exactly what they're supposed to do.


Turns out any ship type is lethal when you group up 300 of them, so nerf numbers, not ships.

Not our fault CCP has made it the only decent way to make alliance level income now.
You know this too or you wouldn't have your own renters.
I can tell you the initial announcement was met with considerable opposition and uproar.

Sorry, you can hang this myth up, if they really required no support you wouldn't be able to keep them pinned for hours and hours on end.

We choose to run them without support because you mob up sub caps (I'm sure CCP envisioned 1000 battleships operating on a single side right? But its ok that you do that right??).

So please try and learn the difference between what a fleet requires and what it chooses to bring.


Our fleets require support if we don't want to be stuck in one place for hours at a time, we choose not to bring it and deal with it.


Your fleet requires capitals to kill ours, you choose not to bring them and are stuck dealing with the consequences.

Lol, so holding my fleet down in one place for hours and going around and using that time to your advantage to do something besides cram the system full to the point of breaking would be a strategic victory if you had the common sense to do that, again, you're choosing not to use that time to your advantage like you're choosing not to bring the tools to fight the ships in front of you.


Its not equivocating just because you refuse to see it for what it is, its just you, dead set on only one possible path to victory (cram system full, mob enemy to death) and complaining that somethings not fitting in that grand strategy.

They're still both choices we're making, regardless of your opinion on the matter.


EDIT: Also the same can be said about your sub cap fleets, no matter what choices I make, nothing will allow me to match your 1700 sub caps that you're more than capable of bringing to a fight, so I suppose you're in favor of some kind of element that allows people to fight numbers like that since there is no actual choices they can make to combat that and achieve victory, something like say, throwing money at the problem to make up for a lack of numbers maybe? Say maybe in the form of larger beefier more expensive ships?

To continue it, its inconvenient that you need to bring capitals to a fight with us, but if you had your way it would be a necessity that I bring 1700+1 to fight your sub cap blob. Very different levels of requirement there, one is simply unachievable because there's not another 1700 pilots IN the game to bring, the other is just inborn CFC (carried over from NC) risk aversion.