open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Supercarrier Nerf
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

Author Topic

HolyNerfBatman
Posted - 2010.12.21 12:05:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
<< Shocked

A bit over the top. Back it off some so they will turn into worthless ships. Then, and only then will you get more support.

I would be greatly interested in hearing why you think these changes would make them worthless.

They would still
) Demolish capital fleets
) Out DPS anything under them in size
) Be able to outrep entire fleets worth of damage one eachother
) Have the EHP of a POS


All your proposal does is encourage them to only be fielded when it will be an ultra blob on someones face. Come on man, you should know better than with your half ass idea here.

No it ensures they will be deployed with support of a subcapital fleet. If for IT that means an ultra blob then so be it. That isn't how it is for all alliances though


Please refrain from personal attacks. Spitfire

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.21 12:08:00 - [62]
 

Well at least you countered my proposal with well thought out examples of how these changes would do what you say.

Oh wait, you didn't. Cool

HolyNerfBatman
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:04:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Well at least you countered my proposal with well thought out examples of how these changes would do what you say.

Oh wait, you didn't. Cool


Ok fine.

First of all, lowering the drone bay for normal drones is fine. That limits what they can do against support.

Also the neutralizer penalty is fine too. Again, makes it more difficult to fight off support.

So with those in place, they will not do well against support, so I ask, why...

Scan resolution penalty? All this does it make it take longer and longer to lock capital ships. A useless nerf.

The fighter bomber nerf, why? If you learned to read patch notes you would know they are being changed so they are no where near as affective against sub capitals. So again, all this does is nerf their ability to fight capital ships.

Capacitor recharge? Are you hoping they bring triage carriers/guardians with them to cap each other up to jump out? If it is not a tactical good choice to fit neuts, then they will just fit remote cap transfers. So again, your cap nerf is just bypassed, therefor, a pointless nerf. But if it makes you feel like your nerf has more nerfness to it, then keep it I guess.

The -1 fitting slot. First of all this will just make the Hel even more worthless. Another thing with all the carriers fitting remote cap transfer, again, your hope of them not fitting a cap recharger to get away is just bypassed.

Also forcing them to pick between fighters and fighter bombers, why? They are incredibly easy to kill. And with support on the field they will make short work of them now that super carriers are not very effective against support. So again, a pointless nerf that just nerfs their effectiveness against other capitals, not support like you are claiming they are for.

So all in all, out of 7 different nerfs, only 2, maybe 3 are needed. The rest is just nerfing their ability against capitals.

But, in the end, you have made up your mind you are the super carrier expert, and any discussion on your suggests as can be seen from previous posters, is meet with bitter rage. So arguing with you is pointless, just like most of your proposal. Just don't forget to reply to this with some meme or something of the equivalent so you feel like you have won some debate or something. For the sake of the super carrier pilots, I strongly suggest you have this moved to F&I section where it belongs instead of trying to force feed this to us. It is not 100% fail so it deserves to be discussed over there.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:19:00 - [64]
 

Quote:
Scan resolution penalty? All this does it make it take longer and longer to lock capital ships. A useless nerf.

It takes my wyvern about 8 seconds to lock a capital ship. This would could raise that to maybe 10 while at the same time making it take over a minute to lock a dictor. Making them that much harder to tackle and kill unless they just idle on grid for a long time before bubbling for some reason.

Quote:
The fighter bomber nerf, why? If you learned to read patch notes you would know they are being changed so they are no where near as affective against sub capitals. So again, all this does is nerf their ability to fight capital ships.

If you read patch notes you would know this change is in fact, already in the game. This change as stated in the OP is so capitals arent instagibbed quite so fast by fighter bombers. Right now dreads are virtually worthless because of the outrageous dps of FB.


Quote:
Capacitor recharge? Are you hoping they bring triage carriers/guardians with them to cap each other up to jump out? If it is not a tactical good choice to fit neuts, then they will just fit remote cap transfers. So again, your cap nerf is just bypassed, therefor, a pointless nerf. But if it makes you feel like your nerf has more nerfness to it, then keep it I guess.

This does a number of things. Makes them cap out easier if you are neuting them, reduces their ability to maintain sustainable spider tanks, and finally makes them less mobile without support carriers giving them cap. Again encouraging the SC fleet to instead become a capital fleet with support carriers and dreads to accompany them.

Quote:
The -1 fitting slot. First of all this will just make the Hel even more worthless. Another thing with all the carriers fitting remote cap transfer, again, your hope of them not fitting a cap recharger to get away is just bypassed.

This hurts cap recharge and utility further. That's the point. It won't hurt their EHP just their ability to maintain spider tanks, survive nueting and reduce their mobility.
As for the hel...it's already worthless as you said. You cant retract worth from a worthless time. That goes against the very essence of the word worthless.

Quote:
Also forcing them to pick between fighters and fighter bombers, why? They are incredibly easy to kill. And with support on the field they will make short work of them now that super carriers are not very effective against support. So again, a pointless nerf that just nerfs their effectiveness against other capitals, not support like you are claiming they are for.

Because 20 SC's fielding 20 fighters each melt hictors so fast you need 80 or more just to tackle the 20 SC's for a few minutes. If you want to keep them tackled for the half an hour it would take to kill that many in low lag conditions you need hundreds.

Quote:
But, in the end, you have made up your mind you are the super carrier expert, and any discussion on your suggests as can be seen from previous posters, is meet with bitter rage. So arguing with you is pointless, just like most of your proposal. Just don't forget to reply to this with some meme or something of the equivalent so you feel like you have won some debate or something. For the sake of the super carrier pilots, I strongly suggest you have this moved to F&I section where it belongs instead of trying to force feed this to us. It is not 100% fail so it deserves to be discussed over there.

Given your statements in this thread I am going to go out on a limb and say you dont use a supercarrier. Either that or you simply don't use it or you would know the nerf vs subcaps is already in. I do, I have for some years. Several supercarrier pilots have already responded and endorsed this thread. So obviously your assumptions are off. But again, you're welcome to your opinion even if it's wrong Very Happy

HolyNerfBatman
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:53:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: HolyNerfBatman on 21/12/2010 13:54:04
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
desperate argument


You of all people are hardly a super carrier expert. lol

You position is unwavering and you refuse to discuss the suggestions. You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"

So again, your proposal is over the top. Too much of a nerf and you will make these turn into pos decorations or even worse, nothing but sanctume mission ships. Also it is funny how you argue for the nerf because you don't like how a specific alliance is using them. So it's, "Nerf how they use them, not how I use them" proposal.

Anyways, enjoy the free bumps to your thread.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.21 13:55:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
Edited by: HolyNerfBatman on 21/12/2010 13:54:04
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
desperate argument


You of all people are hardly a super carrier expert. lol

You position is unwavering and you refuse to discuss the suggestions. You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"

So again, your proposal is over the top. Too much of a nerf and you will make these turn into pos decorations or even worse, nothing but sanctume mission ships. Also it is funny how you argue for the nerf because you don't like how a specific alliance is using them. So it's, "Nerf how they use them, not how I use them" proposal.

Anyways, enjoy the free bumps to your thread.


So after having all that shot down with reasonable arguments this is the best you can do? Guess I am not surprised. See you in Fountain if you guys show up again ^_^

Shobon Welp
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2010.12.21 14:01:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: HolyNerfBatman
You want to argue with me and others but refuse to see their positions. Only "EdFromHumanResources Position"


Maybe if you want people to see things from your position, you could try holding a better thought out position rather than the blind ad hominems and unsupported rhetoric?

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.12.21 14:07:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Marlona Sky on 21/12/2010 14:07:46
:D

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.12.21 15:15:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34
I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):
  • 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
  • 3000m explosion radius
  • 100m/s explosion velocity
  • Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
  • ~0 dps vs. anything else



These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.


It is not my goal to nerf conventional caps, and this could easily be avoided. Looking at the numbers a bit more closely, titans have a sig radius of 15-16km, supercarriers 10-12km, carriers about 3km and dreadnoughts less than 2km. Setting explosion radius to 15km would give carriers an 80% tank and dreadnoughts almost 90% against these weapons, before considering resistances etc. These missiles would be a form of torps and would not gain any bonuses to explosion radius from rigs, skills or implants.

With this restriction in place, it's just a matter of deciding on an appropriate peak DPS per bomber and making sure that they don't end up displacing dreadnoughts from their anti-POS role. This could be done by giving the torps a peak range of 20-25km - insufficient to reach a large control tower through the shields. Smaller control towers and other structures would be protected by their lower sig radius.

This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.21 17:51:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

We know a supercarrier nerf is incoming. That's been confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. We just don't know what it contains yet.

The question is do you want it to be something like this or ham fisted like a 50% EHP reduction?
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?

“Ham fisted”. I love that.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.21 22:08:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 21/12/2010 22:08:41
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 21/12/2010 00:42:34
I'd quite like to see a relatively cheap dedicated subcap anti-cap ship - we don't yet have anything really matching that description. For example, giving bombers a new variety of torp (somewhat like citadel torps):
  • 3000hp per torp (to reduce vulnerability to smartbombs)
  • 3000m explosion radius
  • 100m/s explosion velocity
  • Allows for 5-10k dps per bomber vs. supercaps, a quarter that vs. caps
  • ~0 dps vs. anything else



These would kill conventional capitals far too easily. They would make dreads and carriers completely useless unless you had complete system control. Cap fights would be a thing of the past.


It is not my goal to nerf conventional caps, and this could easily be avoided. Looking at the numbers a bit more closely, titans have a sig radius of 15-16km, supercarriers 10-12km, carriers about 3km and dreadnoughts less than 2km. Setting explosion radius to 15km would give carriers an 80% tank and dreadnoughts almost 90% against these weapons, before considering resistances etc. These missiles would be a form of torps and would not gain any bonuses to explosion radius from rigs, skills or implants.

With this restriction in place, it's just a matter of deciding on an appropriate peak DPS per bomber and making sure that they don't end up displacing dreadnoughts from their anti-POS role. This could be done by giving the torps a peak range of 20-25km - insufficient to reach a large control tower through the shields. Smaller control towers and other structures would be protected by their lower sig radius.

This would achieve the desired result - supercaps deployed without support would be vulnerable to a medium-sized fleet of bombers, which in turn would be highly vulnerable to a fleet of sub-caps.


Alright so you bring a valid point. But these would still be a serious problem for sieged dreads. It may be possible in the future but in todays climate dreads are almost useless as is. Let's get out of the woods we are in presently before throwing more into the mix eh?

Originally by: Windjammer

Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?

“Ham fisted”. I love that.


Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.

Bobbeh
Minmatar
Navy of Xoc
The Remnant Legion
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:38:00 - [72]
 

This was after the FB change correct ed?

Also

If the problem is that they are super hp with super rr tank why not just remove their ability to RR eachother and make them need carriers...?

DOes that not solve all the problems? without soo much change?

as carriers are easier to kill, by support and are jammable and very able to be neuted.

Tho im not sure how we can say supers cant be neuted as Imperians Erebus was neuted out by Evoke and killed in less than 5 minutes.



But it is my opinion that before any changes to supers are made, that the way shield bonus's apply needs to be looked at. as at the moment is gives armor tanks jumping into a fight an unfair advantage.

Also i think if your gonna nerf the SC ability to nos i'd nerf the effective range of them not the cost of them.

Make them 50% less range so that gives hics and dics a 15k buffer where supers cant neut them but they can point em/ bubble them.

also their is no need for the slot reduction as you know cap recharge is already terrible and 1 pdu doesnt change that.



But then again i think the whole argument is moot, because when dreads were king they had no counter except a bigger dread fleet.

Good luck bringing a bs gang against a dread gang unless you severely out number them. Not to mention carriers i've been in a 50 man carrier fleet and taken a 500 man support fleet, we had 3 losses. this is force escalation, people refuse to use the counter that is given to them, which is small fast ships to clip fighter bombers then dreads to finish the job, done and done. Problem is usually lag. Or people wanting an easy fix.

There are definitely some changes needed to super carriers but what you have listed is a lil stiff.



StanFromRiskManagement
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:53:00 - [73]
 

Actually you bring forth a few very valid points. I think a range negative instead of an activation bonus would be better. It wouldn't outright bar their ability to use the module but would hinder them using it against tacklers.

I also think you are right about the dread fleets of old. I will work on responding to this more lafter after I eat :)

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 02:56:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: StanFromRiskManagement
Actually you bring forth a few very valid points. I think a range negative instead of an activation bonus would be better. It wouldn't outright bar their ability to use the module but would hinder them using it against tacklers.

I also think you are right about the dread fleets of old. I will work on responding to this more lafter after I eat :)

Whoops, wrong account

Atius Tirawa
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.22 03:09:00 - [75]
 

Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 03:13:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).


So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?

Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?

Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
Posted - 2010.12.22 06:34:00 - [77]
 


Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:22:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?

“Ham fisted”. I love that.


Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then you’ll understand it’s more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,……..stretching the truth?

I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say it’s from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your group’s main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:30:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?

“Ham fisted”. I love that.


Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then you’ll understand it’s more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,……..stretching the truth?

I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say it’s from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your group’s main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.


So in your mind you think a long time supercap pilot would troll the eve world to get supercarriers nerfed for what benefit?

Also it's not just MY source. I am just the only one raising my voice about it. Your knee jerk reaction however is noted. You forgot to mention we only fly t1 rifters and that there are no goons or one of a dozen other worn out memes.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 07:45:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Could you cite this nerf confirmation? A link perhaps?

“Ham fisted”. I love that.


Sorry but it's been through direct discussions with people that weren't supposed to happen. We know a nerf's coming, not what it contains.
Then you’ll understand it’s more than a little difficult to take your word for it. Especially given your groups penchant for, how shall I say this,……..stretching the truth?

I mean, on the one hand you say a an upcoming Supercarrier nerf has been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt and on the other hand you say it’s from a secret source only you know about. Would YOU believe that from anyone else much less a member of YOUR group? This is your group’s main thing. Deceit for the sheer joy of screwing with people.


So in your mind you think a long time supercap pilot would troll the eve world to get supercarriers nerfed for what benefit?
Your question was answered before you asked it. I repeat, “for the sheer joy of screwing with people”.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Also it's not just MY source. I am just the only one raising my voice about it. Your knee jerk reaction however is noted. You forgot to mention we only fly t1 rifters and that there are no goons or one of a dozen other worn out memes.
Oh. I see. You’re the only one of a secret group of people who have secret advance knowledge of a secret Supercarrier nerf. It all makes sense now. If only I’d known there was a secret group.Very Happy

Are you actually thinking about what you’re writing? The above makes some sort of credible sense to you?

As far as my “knee jerk reaction”? Come on! Your group has worked long and hard for its reputation. It’s not going to go away merely because it’s inconvenient to you at this time.

-Windjammer

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:12:00 - [81]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16
Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one.
We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes.
We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu.
We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable.
We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)


If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.

CCP Spitfire


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:17:00 - [82]
 

Just a friendly reminder: please try to keep the discussion in a civil and constructive vein.

Thanks!


Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:30:00 - [83]
 

We need to fix super carriers in such a way that people will actually deploy them in combat. Make them cost half as much, and do a third less damage and we might see them being fielded for something other than packing a cynojammed system full of them as a show of 'strength'.

Atius Tirawa
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:39:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).


So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?

Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?

Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.


I did not say remove FBs all together - I am saying nurf them a lot. Like 25% less damage and far worse missle explo radius sort of nurf.

To be honest, i would much rather have seen their logistics buffed considerably then see what they are doing right now.

Its either nurf the SC, change the SC roles to match what they were origionally ment for when they were called Moms, or buff dreads.

And yah, its not about isk value. Isk value should not determin the relative strength of the ship - ex the price is not 2x the strength - that makes the game a boring liniar progression which eve should not be about.

but really, the new SCs are game breaking imo and I am forced either to get one or get a drake. I am going to get one bcause thats what I have to do to get any front line fleet fun without dying in 30 secs. Hay, I'm ok with that - but I still think its breaking. Don't you?

Farinet
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:46:00 - [85]
 


Aphrodite Skripalle
Galactic Defence Consortium
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:49:00 - [86]
 

If sub capitals or other ships suck, fix that.
Fixing the nerf of dreadnoughts will help a lot.


/not supported

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:51:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Atius Tirawa
Honestly, the only thing that needs to be nurfed is fighter-bombers. The whole idea of bombers was ill concived during a time when ccp was desparate for moms to become more useful. The ships themselves are actually perfectly fine (except the Hel which needs a light buff to match the other ships).


So without fighter bombers its "perfectly fine" for a ship to cost 25x and only do 2x the dps, 1.5x the rep, a lot of EHP, trapped in the ship, and ewar immunity?

Why not just buy 2 carriers and and a second character off the character market so you retain the ability to switch out to any ship on command?

Without fighter bombers motherships are less worthless than pre EHP buff but they are still pretty ****ty.


I did not say remove FBs all together - I am saying nurf them a lot. Like 25% less damage and far worse missle explo radius sort of nurf.

To be honest, i would much rather have seen their logistics buffed considerably then see what they are doing right now.

Its either nurf the SC, change the SC roles to match what they were origionally ment for when they were called Moms, or buff dreads.

And yah, its not about isk value. Isk value should not determin the relative strength of the ship - ex the price is not 2x the strength - that makes the game a boring liniar progression which eve should not be about.

but really, the new SCs are game breaking imo and I am forced either to get one or get a drake. I am going to get one bcause thats what I have to do to get any front line fleet fun without dying in 30 secs. Hay, I'm ok with that - but I still think its breaking. Don't you?

I completely agree they are overwhelming to both capitals and subcapitals beyond what they should be. That's why my original post actually includes a 30% FB DPS nerf as opposed to your 25%. I also don't think carriers or motherships should be viable towards subcaps at all. That steals the thunder of subcapital fleets in my eyes and makes the game a little less fun.

Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:51:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Aphrodite Skripalle
Fixing the nerf of dreadnoughts will help a lot.


What was nerfed about dreadnoughts that would allow them to kill super carriers more effectively?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 08:59:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16
Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one.
We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes.
We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu.
We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable.
We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
AND your group loves to screw with people. You have not addressed that assertion nor have you given any reason to believe you have special knowledge other than we should trust you. As a member of a group of people who love to spread disinformation we should trust you. Your assertion that the Supercarriers will be nerfed may be correct. As nerf happy as CCP is and with Zulu parked where he is it could well happen. However, your suggestion that the EVE community simply take your word for your alleged inside information is ludicrous. To state it as a matter of fact is absurd. To expect us to accept it as fact in support of your plan to nerf Supercarriers your way is unbelievable.


Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
Regardless of whatever else your group does or has done, it is composed of many who love to troll. Look up your groups history. It’s on the web for those who haven’t had firsthand experience.

What you’re saying is some of the CSM members are in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement? Further that your group regularly communicates with them regarding insider information?

-Windjammer

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:09:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:10:55
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 08:18:16
Actually "my group" has at least 3 members that now work for CCP at CCP Reykjavik and have had 2-3 CSM members in every CSM but the most recent one.
We were the group that published a guide on how to make deep safes.
We were the gruop that published a guide on how to properly do grid fu.
We championed the titan changes that allowed them to be killable because they were finally tackleable.
We have one of the most newbie friendly and intensive wikis outside of evelopedia(Which is often horribly out of date)
AND your group loves to screw with people. You have not addressed that assertion nor have you given any reason to believe you have special knowledge other than we should trust you. As a member of a group of people who love to spread disinformation we should trust you. Your assertion that the Supercarriers will be nerfed may be correct. As nerf happy as CCP is and with Zulu parked where he is it could well happen. However, your suggestion that the EVE community simply take your word for your alleged inside information is ludicrous. To state it as a matter of fact is absurd. To expect us to accept it as fact in support of your plan to nerf Supercarriers your way is unbelievable.


Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If any single group in Eve has claim to not be trolling when it comes to game mechanics we do. If you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club. It just means I have a continued concern towards the game's well being.
Regardless of whatever else your group does or has done, it is composed of many who love to troll. Look up your groups history. It’s on the web for those who haven’t had firsthand experience.

What you’re saying is some of the CSM members are in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement? Further that your group regularly communicates with them regarding insider information?

-Windjammer



Actually I never claimed the CSM said it. You said that. Assumed that. As for knowing Goons history I am fairly well sure I know it more intimately than you. So if you think this is just a simple troll you don't think supercarriers would be more balanced from these proposed nerfs?


Actually I really can't tell at this point if you honestly don't think supercarriers are a large problem in current form or if you're simply trolling.

You surely can't believe that because some goons trolled that everything any goon says is a troll. That's straight Pavlovian conditioning right there.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (13)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only