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

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:09:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
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.


YooHoo!!! Very HappyVery Happy

You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!

So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely??? QuestionQuestionShockedShocked

Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. IdeaIdea Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??QuestionQuestion

- <3 Toffee Stunner

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:19:00 - [92]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:20:24
Originally by: Toffee Stunner

YooHoo!!!

You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!

So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???

Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??


Do please provide proof of where I raged at the idea of removing non fighter/fighter bombers drones from the ship entirely. Just did a scan of the thread and I can't find me saying any such thing. I actually encouraged the removal of their ability to field as many non FB's. It's part of my original proposition.

I see one spot where I pointed out that removing FB alone and retaining everything else would remove this ships role versus capitals, which it would. Making it a very expensive carrier that does pretty much everything the same as a carrier. But I never try to discourage someone from suggesting you take away normal drones.

But yes I think that supercarriers should be more at risk without support present and thus make support more viable/vital on the battlefield.

I also took the liberty to make your post a little easier to read. Removed the signing of the post since your name is clearly evident on the left hand column.

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:38:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 09:20:24
Originally by: Toffee Stunner

YooHoo!!!

You crazy guys you... Was just wanting to say I bolded something here!

So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely???

Seems to me by doing so puts the sexy *squeel!* super carriers and normal carriers at more risk. Thus making support ships more viable on the battlefield. Isn't that one of the aspects of your idea??


Do please provide proof of where I raged at the idea of removing non fighter/fighter bombers drones from the ship entirely. Just did a scan of the thread and I can't find me saying any such thing. I actually encouraged the removal of their ability to field as many non FB's. It's part of my original proposition.

I see one spot where I pointed out that removing FB alone and retaining everything else would remove this ships role versus capitals, which it would. Making it a very expensive carrier that does pretty much everything the same as a carrier. But I never try to discourage someone from suggesting you take away normal drones.

But yes I think that supercarriers should be more at risk without support present and thus make support more viable/vital on the battlefield.

I also took the liberty to make your post a little easier to read. Removed the signing of the post since your name is clearly evident on the left hand column.


Oh honey... Sad

Please don't be made at me because I write different than you. SadSad

- <3 Toffee Stunner

EdFromLogistics
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:44:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Toffee Stunner

Oh honey...

Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.


So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:52:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Actually I never claimed the CSM said it. You said that. Assumed that.
In point of fact I did not say that nor did I assume it. I asked you if thatís what you were saying.

-In post 32 of this thread you state, ďWe 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.Ē

-In post 71 of this thread you reply to my request for a method of confirmation with, ďSorry 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.Ē

-In post 81 of this thread you state, ďIf you think we don't keep in touch with CSM members you're daft. That doesn't make me part of a secret club.Ē

Your statements clearly state you have insider information from a group you will not name. Further, your statements strongly suggest that group is composed of members of the CSM. If not the CSM, then the only other source for such insider information is CCP itself. Either you are alleging someone is in violation of their None Disclosure Agreement or your claim to insider information is false as is your allegation of NDA violations.


Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
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?
Iím sure you do know the totality of goon history better than I. This does not change the history I know nor refute anything Iíve said about that history. I do not believe this is a simple troll. I think itís an attempt on your part to gain support for your nerf plan by making false claims you cannot support.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
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.
I donít believe everything a goon says is a troll. I believe goon history points directly to distribution of disinformation for giggles and self benefit. EVE is hardly the first or only game goons have done and are doing this in.

I donít believe your OP is a troll. I believe itís a genuine attempt to nerf Supercarriers in such a way as to gain your group maximum strategic and tactical benefit. I believe that your concern is more for goons and less for EVE and I believe youíre more than willing to make false statements to support your concerns and endeavor.

-Windjammer

Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:55:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Doctor Ungabungas on 22/12/2010 10:06:05
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
So if that is the case Mr. Goonie then why do you rage when anyone suggest removing the ability to field any non-fighter/fighter bomber drones from the ship entirely??? QuestionQuestionShockedShocked



Well for starters it means that supercarriers can't shoot POS, and everyone knows how much fun shooting POS is.

More seriously, it removes their ability to run anomalies and generate an income to offset the cost of having a dedicated SC alt. This would lead to less accounts and CCP would never go for it.

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 09:56:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner

Oh honey...

Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.


So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?


Hai! SurprisedSurprised

Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.

Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it. RazzRazz

- <3 Toffee Stunner

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:00:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner

Oh honey...

Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.


So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?


Hai! SurprisedSurprised

Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.

Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it. RazzRazz

- <3 Toffee Stunner


It is castration to be sure their intended role(Which is anti capital work) remains intact and unintended roles(against sub capitals) does not?

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:04:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
Originally by: EdFromLogistics
Originally by: Toffee Stunner

Oh honey...

Please don't be made at me because I write different than you.


So nothing on topic to add Re: Supercarrier nerfs?


Hai! SurprisedSurprised

Yes. I would like to add your idea is nothing short of a castration rather than a balanced approach.

Please don't hate me for my opionion, you asked for it. RazzRazz

- <3 Toffee Stunner


It is castration to be sure their intended role(Which is anti capital work) remains intact and unintended roles(against sub capitals) does not?


No darlin, it does not. Shocked

You make them player owned station modules that cost more than the tower itself. Neutral

Please rethink your idea, discuss it, and then bring it back in assembly hall. Idea

Thank you sooo much honey! Very HappyVery Happy

- <3 Toffee Stunner

Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:07:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Toffee Stunner
ahaulhualrualgualgulagualhuaruauragulauhlahualgualrualugaluhlahua


Stop posting.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:11:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
ahaulhualrualgualgulagualhuaruauragulauhlahualgualrualugaluhlahua


Stop posting.
Yeah. That'll work. Exactly what you needed to say to get him to stop.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:14:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 10:17:06
Originally by: Toffee Stunner

No darlin, it does not.
You make them player owned station modules that cost more than the tower itself.

Please rethink your idea, discuss it, and then bring it back in assembly hall.



Perhaps a reason supported by some mechanics/data supporting your wild claims?

Originally by: Windjammer
Yeah. That'll work. Exactly what you needed to say to get him to stop.

As for you, you are a forum alt that has done nothing productive on the forums since 07 but try to troll any thread with the word nerf in it unless it involved nerfing suicide ganking in some way.

You came into the thread with some very obvious trolls but was humored for a while, you still have brought nothing beyond "U r goon u troll" and certainly haven't added to the discussion at all regarding supercaps and their use or misuse. I will likely keep responding to you because I appreciate the bumps but I won't be trying to argue with you anymore because you're using circular logic that is as flawed as it is annoying.

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:27:00 - [103]
 

TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:28:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Doctor Ungabungas
Originally by: Toffee Stunner
ahaulhualrualgualgulagualhuaruauragulauhlahualgualrualugaluhlahua


Stop posting.


Hello Mr. Goonie, Very HappyVery Happy

Please S.O.S. more goonies into this thread to try and convince the rest of us this is a good idea. IdeaIdea

Seriously though, this idea has some merit, so I am not saying it is all bad. It is just not ready for a vote in assembly hall. ConfusedConfused

- <3 Toffee Stunner

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:34:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Vuk Lau
TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)

I could get behind this if the method of tackling remained the same(Bubbles and hictors only). Vulnerability to Ewar would permit subcaps to jam, sensor damp(hahaha, I hope people don't seriously use this module), jam, or target paint(not sure why this would be needed but whatever) the supercaps. Jamming alone would make it much harder for supercarriers to counter hictors and dictors attempting to tackle them. It would also give subcaps a role versus supercaps.

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:40:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Vuk Lau
TBH IMHO motherships should lose their EW immunity (except warp disruption)


/epic facepalm

- <3 Toffee Stunner

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 10:56:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Windjammer on 22/12/2010 11:01:40
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
As for you, you are a forum alt that has done nothing productive on the forums since 07 but try to troll any thread with the word nerf in it unless it involved nerfing suicide ganking in some way.
Ah. Another set of allegations. Aside from the very obvious and never denied fact that Windjammer was created exclusively as a forum alt., do you have some substantiation to your claims this time? Or are the readers just supposed to take your word on these claims too?

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
You came into the thread with some very obvious trolls but was humored for a while, you still have brought nothing beyond "U r goon u troll" and certainly haven't added to the discussion at all regarding supercaps and their use or misuse.
Correction; I came onto this thread in post 70 with a polite question which you were unable to satisfactorily answer. Your answers spoke to your lack of credibility as does your lack of response to post 95. If your credibility can be questioned in one aspect of your presentation it brings suspicion to the rest of it and that brings to question the value of your presentation.

Correction; I did not say you were trolling. In fact I said you werenít trolling or at least that I did not believe you were trolling.

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
I will likely keep responding to you because I appreciate the bumps but I won't be trying to argue with you anymore because you're using circular logic that is as flawed as it is annoying.
You really should look up the definition of circular logic. It does not mean what you think it does and I never employ it. Perhaps you know more about Supercarriers than you do about logic?

You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.

Your responses to me havenít been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. Youíre avoiding because youíre boxed in, in post 95.

-Windjammer

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:07:00 - [108]
 

Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.

Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:26:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Windjammer

You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.

Your responses to me havenít been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. Youíre avoiding because youíre boxed in, in post 95.



This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.

Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:30:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.

Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.
Relevance, fur killer, is found in my disproving the OPís allegation made in post 32 of this thread regarding his access to information nobody else has. The OP partially bases his request for support of his particular nerf by stating a nerf is coming and suggesting it will be a lot worse nerf than his suggestions if we donít accept his suggestions and try to move them through the CSM process to CCP. Itís nothing less than an attempt to panic people into accepting an overboard nerf of Supercapitals which will benefit the play style and membership his group uses. This is a one dimensional perspective and is hardly good for EVE as a whole.

This is what he wrote, ďWe 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?Ē

The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ďtrust meĒ. Hope this helps you.

-Windjammer

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:34:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Furb Killer
Sorry windjammer but i checked your posts, including the ones you referenced to, and i didnt see anything relevant to this topic: The proposed nerf for supercaps.

Now i am all fine if you are just here to troll goons, but they made a special subforum for that, CAOD.
Relevance, fur killer, is found in my disproving the OPís allegation made in post 32 of this thread regarding his access to information nobody else has. The OP partially bases his request for support of his particular nerf by stating a nerf is coming and suggesting it will be a lot worse nerf than his suggestions if we donít accept his suggestions and try to move them through the CSM process to CCP. Itís nothing less than an attempt to panic people into accepting an overboard nerf of Supercapitals which will benefit the play style and membership his group uses. This is a one dimensional perspective and is hardly good for EVE as a whole.

This is what he wrote, ďWe 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?Ē

The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ďtrust meĒ. Hope this helps you.

-Windjammer


If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.

Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:38:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer

You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.

Your responses to me havenít been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. Youíre avoiding because youíre boxed in, in post 95.



This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.

Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
This is your best response? More avoidance of the questions regarding your credibility? Claims that Iím trying to drag the thread into politics when what Iím doing is questioning your credibility with some very direct questions? Questions you will not answer for fear of treading upon yourself?

-Windjammer

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:42:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 22/12/2010 11:47:12
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer

You really should have dropped your claim to insider information. It has not served you well.

Your responses to me havenít been arguments so much as attempts to avoid my questions and mischaracterize my statements. Youíre avoiding because youíre boxed in, in post 95.



This is your best troll? That I am "boxed in"? Afraid I don't see it the way you do. I "avoid" answering your allegations because you're just trying to drag the thread into a political discussion. I call you an alt because you are. Either that or you're a 3 year old Eve player who was never once joined a player corporation, which, honestly is far more pathetic.

Do you have anything to add to the topic beyond your previously unrelated talking points?
This is your best response? More avoidance of the questions regarding your credibility? Claims that Iím trying to drag the thread into politics when what Iím doing is questioning your credibility with some very direct questions? Questions you will not answer for fear of treading upon yourself?

-Windjammer



What part of makes you think that I want this one random empire dweller believe me when you are here just to argue pointlessly? You have brought literally nothing to this thread and continue to. But as always I appreciate the bumps.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:44:00 - [114]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/12/2010 11:46:27
Originally by: Windjammer

This is what he wrote, ďWe 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?Ē

The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ďtrust meĒ. Hope this helps you.



Maybe you are just reading too much between the lines?

All I get from it is the typical introduction to a NERF-XYZ post, where the OP says something along the lines of "its so blatantly overpowered it will get nerfed we all know it".

Still supporting the original idea, as I actually think in this instance its really true.


Edit: And in fact, implying "someone who knows for a fact told me, but I cant tell you who" would most likely still spell trouble for the persons involved.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 11:59:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.

Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donít support your proposal. Iíd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.

I find it interesting that youíve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?

You wonít reveal your sources because they donít exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youíre such an honest guy?

-Windjammer

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:01:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.

Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donít support your proposal. Iíd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.

I find it interesting that youíve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?

You wonít reveal your sources because they donít exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youíre such an honest guy?

-Windjammer


So with this post you admit you're here just to argue and troll. Thanks for this.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:08:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 22/12/2010 11:46:27
Originally by: Windjammer

This is what he wrote, ďWe 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?Ē

The OP has been unable to cite a valid source and unwilling to do anything other than, in effect, say, ďtrust meĒ. Hope this helps you.



Maybe you are just reading too much between the lines?

All I get from it is the typical introduction to a NERF-XYZ post, where the OP says something along the lines of "its so blatantly overpowered it will get nerfed we all know it".
I might believe that if heíd offered a correction to his statement. Instead he danced around the question and follow up questions. Heís not just making an exaggerated statement. Heís suggested he has insider information. Check out post 95 for a list of what he posted and itíll give you a better idea of what Iím talking about.

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Edit: And in fact, implying "someone who knows for a fact told me, but I cant tell you who" would most likely still spell trouble for the persons involved.
I agree that it should, but I wouldnít go so far as to say it likely will.

-Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:12:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
If this is a problem for you then simply don't support it. Not really a complex concept. With zero experience in a player corporation or even a non newbie corporation you obviously have zero experience with supercap warfare so your opinion on the topic is...less than valued. Your greatest concern in your quite vast posting history seems to be suicide ganking. That hints you live in empire and have for your 3 year existence. You likely use this character because you believe it saves your "peace loving" main from retribution from your trolling.

Beyond that when I say that the sources wont be revealed it means just that. Which is also not a complex concept.
I donít support your proposal. Iíd thought that was a simple enough concept for you to grasp. Further, I question your honesty in arguing on your proposals behalf.

I find it interesting that youíve been reduced to name calling and speculation of my experience in EVE based upon my forum alt. How extra sensory of you. Is this how you got your insider information?

You wonít reveal your sources because they donít exist. A sad attempt to panic people into supporting your nerf proposal. Did you really think people would believe you because youíre such an honest guy?

-Windjammer


So with this post you admit you're here just to argue and troll. Thanks for this.
And with this you admit youíre calling anyone who argues with your proposal a troll. Seriously?

-Windjammer

Toffee Stunner
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:16:00 - [119]
 

Oh golly gee! ShockedShocked

So Ed received insider information?! Only the CSM would know stuff like that. ExclamationExclamation

So which CSM member broke the NDA?? QuestionQuestion

Well throw in the pooper sideways and call them Spanky, to think this would be the first CSM without scandal. ConfusedConfused

So much for that. Crying or Very sadCrying or Very sad

- <3 Toffee Stunner

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.12.22 12:17:00 - [120]
 

Two clear alts trolling a thread with the same angle whilst providing no substance to a thread? Surely it's just a chance ^_^ Either way I appreciate the constant bumps. You two are welcome to add to the thread as per the Mod request anytime you wish.


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