These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drone's getting nerfed?

Author
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#341 - 2014-01-05 16:29:20 UTC
I don't think supercarriers should be allowed to carry sentries.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#342 - 2014-01-05 16:30:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I never said that

Oh yes. You implied exactly that.
baltec1 wrote:
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.
Now if this is a matter of you being misinterpreted, please tell us how you meant it instead?


How the hell did you manage to misinterpret that?

He said just jam them. I said supers cannot be jammed.

I said nothing at all about capital reps being overpowered and I have no idea how you got that from the four words I put.
No, you didn't say it, that's why I (And Pinky Hops I think) consistently have said "implied".
You didn't say it, you merely said it in a way that excluded any other interpretation, right?

Just like bruised plums could be about damaged fruit, but isn't.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#343 - 2014-01-05 16:31:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I don't think supercarriers should be allowed to carry sentries.


can you hop in a bestower real quick and bring me some sentries? the ones i had seem to have disappeared into a station hangar somewhere along with some fighters i had in there

im kinda worried now because my drone bay still says it's full ShockedShockedShockedShocked

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#344 - 2014-01-05 16:32:29 UTC
Goonswarm thinking:

Cost is not a factor in balance.

Super carriers use sentry drones to great effect. As do Titans.

You cannot jam super carriers, therefore jamming Archons does not work.

Training time is not a factor of balance.

Ship size is not a factor of balance.

Capital ships should be worse than subcap ships.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#345 - 2014-01-05 16:34:38 UTC
which is a great improvement over pubbie thought, i.e. "i mined the minerals muhself so the ship is free"

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#346 - 2014-01-05 16:36:48 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:


This is what happens in EVE right now.
You want to change that to something like:
"If you want to deal with sub-capitals, don't use capitals"
And I am asking for the good arguments for that change.



If the carriers were able to be delt with via subcaps either by killing them or reducing their effectiveness to the point where you could force them off the grid or even slowly grind them down then there wouldn't be an issue.

Right now they are unkillable to subcaps and able to wipe out any subcap fleets you deploy. They are what those supers used to be.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#347 - 2014-01-05 16:40:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:


This is what happens in EVE right now.
You want to change that to something like:
"If you want to deal with sub-capitals, don't use capitals"
And I am asking for the good arguments for that change.



If the carriers were able to be delt with via subcaps either by killing them or reducing their effectiveness to the point where you could force them off the grid or even slowly grind them down then there wouldn't be an issue.
Here, from the horses' jackals mouth: Carriers aren't an issue.
Now I know you have some sentry questions too, can you restate them?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#348 - 2014-01-05 16:41:48 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Alphea Abbra wrote:
No, you didn't say it, that's why I (And Pinky Hops I think) consistently have said "implied".
You didn't say it, you merely said it in a way that excluded any other interpretation, right?

Just like bruised plums could be about damaged fruit, but isn't.



It helps if you read the words and not the none existent ones between them.

it means literally what it says. Supers cannot be jammed.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#349 - 2014-01-05 16:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Here, from the horses' jackals mouth: Carriers aren't an issue.


Yes carriers are an issue, this fleet is an issue.

Right now they are unkillable to subcaps and able to wipe out any subcap fleets you deploy. They are what those supers used to be. The only saving grace is that they are not as deadly as the old super blob was.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#350 - 2014-01-05 16:46:28 UTC
Andski wrote:
which is a great improvement over pubbie thought, i.e. "i mined the minerals muhself so the ship is free"


No, the only time minerals are free is when you make Capitals.

If you make subcaps, the minerals are expensive.

Right? Roll
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#351 - 2014-01-05 16:46:43 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
No, you didn't say it, that's why I (And Pinky Hops I think) consistently have said "implied".
You didn't say it, you merely said it in a way that excluded any other interpretation, right?

Just like bruised plums could be about damaged fruit, but isn't.



It helps if you read the words and not the none existent ones between them.

it means literally what it says. Supers cannot be jammed.
"Why can't you use e-war against carrierfleets?"
"Supers can't be jammed."

Later:
"There was no implied message."

Yeeeaaaah ...............

I'm not sure why you think I'm going to trust you on that.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#352 - 2014-01-05 16:48:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Here, from the horses' jackals mouth: Carriers aren't an issue.


Yes carriers are an issue, this fleet is an issue.

Right now they are unkillable to subcaps and able to wipe out any subcap fleets you deploy.
Incorrect.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#353 - 2014-01-05 16:50:03 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:

"Why can't you use e-war against carrierfleets?"
"Supers can't be jammed."

Later:
"There was no implied message."

Yeeeaaaah ...............

I'm not sure why you think I'm going to trust you on that.


Now you are just being moronic.

He asked a question. I told him why we don't just jam it.

How is this hard for you?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#354 - 2014-01-05 16:50:52 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Here, from the horses' jackals mouth: Carriers aren't an issue.


Yes carriers are an issue, this fleet is an issue.

Right now they are unkillable to subcaps and able to wipe out any subcap fleets you deploy.
Incorrect.


Name the subcap fleet that can kill them.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#355 - 2014-01-05 17:21:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:

"Why can't you use e-war against carrierfleets?"
"Supers can't be jammed."

Later:
"There was no implied message."

Yeeeaaaah ...............

I'm not sure why you think I'm going to trust you on that.


Now you are just being moronic.

He asked a question. I told him why we don't just jam it.

How is this hard for you?
Ahh, I get it. You don't think the message was implied, not that the message wasn't there.
Fair enough, so the problem is supercarriers, not too survivable carriers.
Please inform Andski of that, I am sure he'd love to know how supercarriers impact sentry drones (And doctrines).

Quote:
Name the subcap fleet that can kill them.
I gave you an example some days ago, but fair enough.
Battleships with high enough alpha, especially if coupled with lockbreaker bombs and cap warfare.
In fact, any combination of doctrines that can manage to put out ~2.5M DPS in less than 20 seconds can do it.
Any fleet that can combine a DPS of 80 000 and a neuting power of more than 5 000 cap/s can do it, albeit probably at a loss.

There are a few fleets that could potentially do this on their own, but more likely you need a couple of fleets and a bomber wing, which still lands it squarely within the realm of what you have done before, so going the dread way is a choice for you.
And that's half my point.

The other half is still that you lack good arguments to nerf carriers, sentries, drone assist or supers.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#356 - 2014-01-05 17:28:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Alphea Abbra wrote:

"Why can't you use e-war against carrierfleets?"
"Supers can't be jammed."

Later:
"There was no implied message."

Yeeeaaaah ...............

I'm not sure why you think I'm going to trust you on that.


Now you are just being moronic.

He asked a question. I told him why we don't just jam it.

How is this hard for you?


His question was about carriers.

You responded that supercarriers cannot be jammed.

Do you not understand why that is drawing some ire?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#357 - 2014-01-05 17:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Pinky Hops wrote:
His question was about carriers.

You responded that supercarriers cannot be jammed.
…because those are the ones providing the reps. Thus, the notion that bringing along a lot of ewar as a counter falls flat.

He did not imply that carriers are overpowered because they can be repped by supers — just that ewar is not a viable option.

Quote:
Do you not understand why that is drawing some ire?
Because it exposes that the people who makes the suggestions aren't familiar enough with the actual realities of the situation to judge whether those suggestions are sensible or not? Exposing people's ignorance often draws exactly that kind of ire…

Alphea Abbra wrote:
You want to change that to something like:
"If you want to deal with sub-capitals, don't use capitals"
And I am asking for the good arguments for that change.

Because it has been the guiding principle of pretty much every capship balancing attempt in the last couple of years, and every time something is devised to work around that principle, more balancing will happen to ensure its proper application.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#358 - 2014-01-05 17:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Tippia wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
His question was about carriers.

You responded that supercarriers cannot be jammed.
…because those are the ones providing the reps. Thus, the notion that bringing along a lot of ewar as a counter falls flat.

He did not imply that carriers are overpowered because they can be repped by supers — just that ewar is not a viable option.


Interesting. Never seen that myself (at least, it's not common). When CFC got crushed by the giant slowcat fleet a few weeks ago (well, not just slotcats. titans + slowcats + subcaps) the Archons were most definitely repping eachother.

There were no supers repping them.

Maybe I'm being silly. I assumed we were talking about actual fights that actually happen....As opposed to hypothetical fights that have not happened.

Here's an example Archon fit from the massive 2700+ pilot fight in DY-P7Q a few weeks back.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20943717

I happen to see remote reppers fitted to it. Surprise!!!! Roll

Also, it somehow died. I thought that was impossible.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#359 - 2014-01-05 18:10:08 UTC
I still dont get why sub caps should be able tp take on caps.

If you do sov wars then you need cap ships. Maybe what the cfc is saying that they should not be in 0.0 because they are unwilling to use null sec tools.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#360 - 2014-01-05 18:13:35 UTC
they do though

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar