open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog, Nozh on Carriers Redux, Part II
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 : last (38)

Author Topic

Cavtrooper
Posted - 2007.11.06 03:53:00 - [1021]
 

I was just wondering... are they implimenting the freaking nerf or not??

I read their post but no answers really... they just kinda beat around the bush.

I would rant and rave for an hour here, but I don't have the time. Let's just say, I invested alot of time and energy into an MS over the years, and any major changes would erase BILLIONS of isk from my balance sheet.. assuming the MS is worth X amount of isk right now.

The value of these ships will free fall... didn't they just hire an economist??? How fair is it to screw over all the older and richer players??

Oh wait, perhaps it's a socialist thing?? Communist perhaps?? Maybe we should read up on Iceland, and see what kind of society they have there... obviously it swings a bit to the left eh? If that's the case, then our market oriented, democratic way of thinking will not hold up to their thick-skulled socialist ideals.

KK, end rand.





Clorthos
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
Posted - 2007.11.06 05:17:00 - [1022]
 

Originally by: Turin

This states to me that, no matter what your player base wants, your going to do as you see fit.




Hey Turin long time no see.

nice quote, this is why I am cancling all 4 of my accounts and letting them die. The wanted change on carriers and the fact that my command ship is also getting "corrected" shows me that I have wasted a long long long time gettign 3 accounts into capital ships and command ships just so 30 day old players do not fear big bad low sec gate camps in thier 2 day old battleships.

It will be nice to look back and see if this is the wake up call CCP got or the one they almost noticed.

Clorthos

Jazmyne Lee
Posted - 2007.11.06 13:59:00 - [1023]
 

I trained carrior and i can say there not solo i have 2x 2.5bill in ships and fittings sitting in a station with out help i cant do **** with it. moving it is a job on it's own then to use them lets not go there. you nerf it i'll have to sale it all do something else with the isk i make.

Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.11.06 14:21:00 - [1024]
 

You know the best bit though right...if they nerf carriers. Pretty much every carrier builder goes out of business and there will be so many carriers up on market/contract selling that the prices will drop through the floor.

Yes I am being sarcastic. No you can't keep me.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2007.11.06 16:19:00 - [1025]
 

Carrier/MS nerf can't happen fast enough IMO. Had three different MSs dropped on one or two BS in the past three weeks. Rolling Eyes

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.11.06 18:20:00 - [1026]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Carrier/MS nerf can't happen fast enough IMO. Had three different MSs dropped on one or two BS in the past three weeks. Rolling Eyes


And u think thats would not happend anymore? Than u hopeless. I want to nerf BS's too because 2-3 BS can kill my BC!!!!

Avangel
Posted - 2007.11.06 18:42:00 - [1027]
 

I think CCP's view on this is pretty easy to understand, after having gotten some more background from this post.

1. This is a battle between the technical staff and the customer service staff. Keep customers happy vs cluster performance.
2. Carriers will be nerfed, and there's nothing you can do about it.
3. CCP is trying to bring 1 day old noobs into tower sieges and 0.0 warfare, because that will get more new players to stick around.
4. CCP doesn't have customer service staff. The carrier nerf will go through.

Hysidee
Warped Mining
Posted - 2007.11.06 19:19:00 - [1028]
 

Just found this in the patch notes:

"A modification has been made to the way drones are launched from stacks. It was discovered that launching drones from very large stacks could cause node deaths."

Does this mean that CCP have fixed the problem and the nerf is no longer needed as people cant crash the server with a carrier blob?

Bishop Malkori
Posted - 2007.11.06 21:07:00 - [1029]
 

CCP-

You are becoming worse than a DJ sampling his own music- Quit nerfing your past ships and introduce new ships. As you admit Kieron your crew made the problems and how your going to punish my clients for your short comings. To train for carrier with needed skills to use it is a huge amount of time. Time = subscription = paying you not to be inventive enough to come up with new Races or ships just keep tweaking ship that already exist and messing with eve's hardcore subscribers so you can be lazy and not come out with new carriers or new Fighters or better battleships or carrier killer ships or at the very least work on making the Dread more than a one show pony.

Nice job Kieron you have again not listened to feed back if there are 10K members of eve that are carrier pilots that have invested the time and effort to fly them quit messing with us. How about you kieron and your team are the really just command ship pilots that got your butts handed to you by carriers?

All in all you have tweaked and killed the best ships in the game you kill the carrier and the faction ships and with all the new MMO's coming out you might see a massively multi exodus from eve you blockheads.

Da'Barador
Posted - 2007.11.07 04:31:00 - [1030]
 

have been playing this game close to a year now, and have dreampt of getting my carrier since day one... am over half way there and have dedicated time to it now... Thank god.. you decided to do this now so I can allocate the time to something else instead of wasting it on a carrier...

12 man gang killed a rorq and two carriers, and lost one BS in the battle... definately PWNMOBILE's.

MrNIce Guy
Posted - 2007.11.07 05:54:00 - [1031]
 

well you will have to change the mothership description . to a toothless.worthless hulk of a ship rarely used in combat

Viceroy Bolloxim
Caldari
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
Posted - 2007.11.08 00:54:00 - [1032]
 

shame carriers actually DONT carry.

I would remove all offensive fighters/drones. Allow repers and defensive drones, but and this is very important.

allow carriers to physically carry players. A teir 1 carrier should carry cruisers and frigates.. fully equiped WITH PLAYER /POD. Let them jumpgate in a carrier with players ready to unleash. perhaps 10 frigates and 5 cruisers.

Allow motherships to carry BC/BS sized ships... Perhaps 5BS + 10 BC

then we get real carriers, with their support fully equipped ready to deploy. No jump bridging. Have to 'DOCK' up against a carrier. No docking can be done in stations.. so loading up will be at pos or outside stations..

anyway.. my 2cents

bollo

Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.11.08 05:47:00 - [1033]
 

When I was a new player thats always how I thought there ship bay worked that you could load up ships with people in them and jump.

Avangel
Posted - 2007.11.08 18:59:00 - [1034]
 

Nah, actually simulating a carrier that carries people in ships makes too much sense.

Aerick Dawn
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.11.08 22:02:00 - [1035]
 

Edited by: Aerick Dawn on 08/11/2007 22:05:44
I went and canceled 3 of my accounts.

Suck it CCP.
Subscription Status: Active
Cancellation Pending
Expires: 14. November 2007
Total Charges Made: 45

NithHaiah
Posted - 2007.11.09 04:11:00 - [1036]
 

Edited by: NithHaiah on 13/11/2007 21:30:12
...

LORD DRAGUIL
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.11.09 06:01:00 - [1037]
 

seems not to long ago carriers and such were beefed up to not be a pos modual (ccp wanted carriers on the front lines) now you want to nerf it back to a pos modual again hmm .

Avangel
Posted - 2007.11.09 06:08:00 - [1038]
 

Actually, I've got a great idea.

Nerf carriers to 5 drones each.

Carrier bonus:

+30% drone damage per advanced drone interfacing level
+25% drone damage per carrier level

Dracorimus
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.11.09 09:28:00 - [1039]
 

<regret> buying and training capital skills Neutral

Such a long period of training now I can only use 5 fighters and be useless vs smaller foes, YAY!

Samurai XII
Posted - 2007.11.09 10:13:00 - [1040]
 

Sad thing is the nerf will be done one way or another.

****ing sad. Accounts staying cancel, you can keep your carebear game CCP.

E-mails are out to newspapers and e-news.

Sae Liao
Cellular Automaton Solutions
Posted - 2007.11.09 12:54:00 - [1041]
 

All you people complaining about this "nerf" are looking at the present and say "OMG, there is no problem!!" and maybe that's even the case right now, but CCP has to look at the direction the game is taking and what it means for it's future.

Every day more and more people are capable to field carriers and if the trend continues (and carriers stay the way they are) fleet battles will probably be fought with huge blobs of carriers in the not too distent future, because carriers can be operated effectively by a single pilot. Add in a few command ships for bonuses and dictors and you've got all you'll ever need. The Battleship fleets will be useful for disabling Cyno jammers and shooting POS and that's about it.

Sure they are totaly useless for roaming gangs, but when those roaming gangs are met with blobs of carriers wherever they go it'll just suck the fun out of the game. Unless they jump in their own caps in which case we're back to the carrier blobs.

Right now we might not have reached the critical mass to really turn EVE into cap-ship online, but we're slowly getting there.

And all you people yelling how "RL Carriers" can do all that and more need to show me a carrier that can be operated effectively without hundreds or even thousands of crew, let alone a single person.



DawEEd
Amarr
War Dawgs
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:06:00 - [1042]
 

I am really of the opinion, that ccp, after having chosen a bad platform for their development, and now been stuck into it, and not wanting to do a re-write in a decent platform like an object oriented language, they are trying to solve their issues with decreasing usage. Less people will fly carriers, so therefore less fighters, therefore less usage, on the server and bandwidth.

It's already been proven that a MS can be destroyed in low sec, so a lot of the arguments they are trying to use are baseless. To strong... My ass farts stronger than that. I have to be more careful with my carrier than my BS cause it's a bigger target.

I for 1 will definetly be looking at other games, if they nerf the carrier or MS. Didn't spend so many months doing the skills just not to make use of them.

Duncan Bannatyne
Honesty Industries
Posted - 2007.11.09 16:17:00 - [1043]
 

Originally by: DawEEd

I have to be more careful with my carrier than my BS cause it's a bigger target.



Sum's it up nicely.

At the moment my main (small ships ETC) is logged on 90% of the time, my alt 5% of the time and my carrier char the other 5%. Reason being? You cant use it in normal PVP without protection.

Kahor
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.09 18:41:00 - [1044]
 

Edited by: Kahor on 09/11/2007 18:50:25
Originally by: Yosarian
Edited by: Yosarian on 29/10/2007 22:21:28
The golden rules of nerfing (in any MMO):

1. If everyone wants one, it's overpowered

2. If you own it, it can never be overpowered

3. If you cant use it, you're certain it's overpowered (even though you've never used it)

4. 98% of posters skim read what the devs write, then moan based on not understanding it

5. 9 out of 10 nerfs turn out to be obviously a good idea in retrospect

6. The people who threaten to cancel their accounts are always the ones who never do

7. Players always think devs don't play their own game! Very strange

8. No MMO has ever solved the problem of endgame inflation. This leads to the inevitability of nerfs

9. The more balanced a game gets, the more glaring the remaining imbalances appear to be

10. People spend more time complaining about nerfs than they do getting over them afterwards


All these are true.


And yet, much like the dev blog, your post bring no reasonning as to back up what you call facts.

It's easy to brush aside players complain by calling em whine and whatever stereotype you have in mind, but when you have an endless steam of players telling you it's a bad idea, most of em even telling you WHY (which your post fails to do btw) then maybe you are wrong, or maybe you should start explaining yourself.

Taken from the dev blog :
Damage dealing
-Small scale PVP : Ok, same DPS as a gank battleship, though a much better tank, the dps is all drone so it can be destroyed, or worse, sent following in warp, very vulnerable to EWAR, will shine when well supported because of the fast it can support back and there is no lag.
-Capital PVP : Simply not true, adding a BS dps to try to gank a dread in a carrier...I wouldn't call this damage dealing.
-Starbase Warfare : Yeah, carriers shots POS all the time, oh wait no, that's dreads, carrier only shots leftovers or stations when the system is already under control and people don't want to use ammos, I haven't seen any carrier fleet put up noticeable dps on a POS that would change the tide of a battle.
Logistics
Small scale PVP/Capital PVP/Starbase Warfare : true for all three, though first case lock time is an issue, second and third case, lag is an issue, plus the fact that most fleet ships armor tank, most people train remote armor repair, but POS require remote shield boosting, but scrap that. I'll say that, beside the lock time that will only let you remote repair other carriers, vulnerability to ewar that leave you sitting duck, useless triage and lag, it's "ok" at logistic.
Support : It only brings small ships, fleet ships still need to be piloted and moved all the way down and cyno network must be maintained, beside your nerf won't stop this, it'll only make it take longer and add to the grind. It doesn't actualy imbalance the game in any way.
PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.) : Oh yeah, I am quite sure the people doing that are already dead by now or will be really soon, I hope your not talking about people assigning fighters to other people so they can rat...come on, this is silly, two character with 1,5+ billion invested being equivalent to a ratting raven that require only one player and, god forbid one quarter of the skill points.
0.0 Transporting
POS fueling
: Two lines (edit : that's actualy three lines, support is the same as 0.0transporting, and post fueling is 0.0 transporting too), same thing, quantity != quality, yes carriers are usefull doing something that badly needed someone to do it anyway, yes carriers are seen doing that a lot but that's because of the fact it won't be sent doing anything else because : it requires a whole support fleet to fight in pvp, its risk vs usefullness only come close to acceptable in big fleets battles, but then your struck with lag so it's a big maybe. Beside, nerfing their ability to do so will not resolve any problem, t

Kahor
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.09 18:47:00 - [1045]
 

Edited by: Kahor on 09/11/2007 18:49:02
Please delete

Lil Mule
Posted - 2007.11.09 18:57:00 - [1046]
 

Im going to attempt to craft a response to this thread in a constructive manner so that CCP can learn from its current debacle. I think its ok to make mistakes, but its a real problem if one doesnt learn from them.

First we have to establish that this is a mistake. Well, that isnt too hard I dont think. CCP feels that they have to nerf a ship which is very integral to the EVE universe. Whether that nerf is correct, or incorrect really isnt at the heart of the issue believe it or not, but Ill get to that in a moment. CCP obviously feels that they made a mistake in launching the ship as it currently stands, and therefore they have to remove some of the functionality. No software maker ever likes to remove functionality, especially in a game where players have worked very hard to achieve that fucntionaltiy - therefore, we can safely say, CCP made a mistake when the originally put the carrier and motherships into the game.

As I stated above, the functionality of the item is not actually what the issue is. The issue is false expecatations created by CCP, and the fact that CCP routinely creates false expectations, and therefore has to deal with the fallout of setting incorrect expectations when they are forced to break them. Let's see how they did it with the carrier.

1) It takes months to train for a carrier. I think everyone realizes this. It's a lot of patience, time, and yes, effort to train for a carrier. This creates an interesting expectation if you think about it for a moment. The expectation is that if I invest months of work into a given item, it better be one heck of an item that will give me siginficant power over other members of the game. I think that is a fair expectation to have. No one would invest months into something that has little to no yield - or a mediocre yield at best.

2) The carrier costs an extrodinary amount of money. I dont know what the exact cost is, but by the time a player pays for the skill books, the fighters, the carrier itself, and the modules, I understand it costs over 3 billion in some cases. I wont even comment on the Nyx which is, from what I understood several months ago, to be worth somewhere around 10-15 billion. This creates an epic expectation. 3 billion is a lot of EVE cash. While inflation isnt what it used to be, I recall in my first year of playing EVE struggling to field a battleship I could afford to lose. I still dont even like the idea of losing a 300 million isk ship as opposed to a 3 billion isk ship. In other words, this creates the expectation that if Im paying 3 billion for a ship, it better stand on its head and do nifty tricks. We could even break this down further into the time spent gathering the 3 billion isk. Its a long time in most cases, and a lot of work. Therefore, yet more work goes into getting the carrier which is an investment, and builds expectations on the potential yield of that investment.

3) At launch, the carrier and more importantly, the mothership were pretty powerful ships. They were launched with certain feature sets, and they performed certain functions. People have worked towards them to get those known functions. There is a certain expectation in what the carrier/mothership can do, and therefore a certain expectation level was set at launch based on how these items functioned

4) Frigates and lesser ships. These ships have a much lower expectation. They dont take very much time to train for, and they dont cost a heck of a lot of money, yet a number of frigates/smaller ships which take less skill training, less time and less money can take out the big bad carriers. This inherently creates quite a problem, because you have this Epic expectation of how powerful a carrier should be - based on the training time and the cost,and yet it gets ruined by a number of smaller cheaper ships.

Conclusion below (oooh a two poster!)

Lil Mule
Posted - 2007.11.09 19:15:00 - [1047]
 

Edited by: Lil Mule on 09/11/2007 19:22:05
So great, we've identified that we had some false expectations set by CCP - and now they are being broken. So what can We do about it? I use the royal We here because we're all together in this boat if we really want to play this game, and we have to see ourselves as a team. The good news there is a few options, but unfortunately they all reside on the CCP end of the team - and these are merely brainstorms about the game mechanics - so bear with me.

1)Its going to have to come down to mathematics to make it fair. If Im spending 4 months training to be a carrier pilot, and X millions of skill points, those little puny ships should have to equal combined the same amount of skill points/training time in order to kill me. The easiest way to do this would be to create a carrier killing frigate class, or something similar, however it could be done with the existing compliment of ships. Of course the coding would be more fancy, and the actual +% bonuses'on frigates and smaller ships etc would not reflect the above suggestion as blatant as I have made it, but it would have to be worked out so the ship types/modules required to kill a carrier would require x amount of skill points which combined with multiple pilots, would equal a carriers skill points. This creates the expectation that it takes X number of pilots to reach the number of skill points that a carrier pilot has, and makes it a bit more 'fair'

2)Carrier pilots should have to invest more money to fly the big boys. I dont think that the small puny ships should have to equal 3 billion in isk in order to take out a carrier. Why? Because 3 billion in frigates would be a lot of frigates, and its just not feasible firstly. Secondly, because Im flying the big uber carrier ship, and its a single ship, it makes sense that it should be much more expensive than the little frigates. Perhaps the cost of frigates should be increased slightly, but not by much. Perhaps Carrier killing frigates should be much more expensive. However the majority of the risk should be borne by the carrier pilot. Its a risk carrier pilots have to take if they want to fly the big boy out on the field of battle. Set this expectation and set it loud and clear, and it shouldnt be a problem - if carrier pilots want to be the big hot shot on the field with an expensive ship - be prepared to lose a lot of money in one explosion.

3) Increase the training time for advanced frigates and their advanced manouevers. Make training time for advanced frigates longer, and/or make advanced frigates that are most useful against capital ships. The little cheap T1 frigates shouldnt really be able to do much against a carrier except be blown up by them. This sets a proper expectation. It sets the expectation that in order for a little puny ship to hurt a carrier, it takes a skilled pilot who has invested his/her time into preparing for advanced challenging combat. This way carrier pilots dont feel like they have been ripped off, and a n00b can come along with 10 friends in frigates and blow them up.

4)You've already addressed the hauling issue with carriers with the upcoming jumping hauler ship thingy - so I dont need to do that.

CCP has not learned its lesson in setting proper expectations with its player base. I believe it has a lot of work to do in that respect. I think we can all name at least 3-4 ships that have experienced the nerf bat in the last little while. I understand that balance takes time to achieve, but set expectations LOW in the beginning and increase them if need be - people dont mind getting more functionality. It is however very bad policy to create Epic expectations and then start chiseling them down, and removing functionality.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2007.11.09 23:39:00 - [1048]
 

Originally by: Turin
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Fedaykin



We have stated that we want more time to work on our ideas, and you can be certain - as always - that we present them to you at earliest possibility.


See, this is the problem though. Most of us do not think there is ANYTHING TO WORK ON.

No matter what Mr Ovuer says, this can be seen as nothing but a nerf. He should have used the term de-evolution, instead of evolution.

You guys insist there is a problem. Your community insists there is not. Just because your posting in a thread you read what we said, doesnt mean that you are listening to what is said. I think that is obvious.

you guys are insisting on going through with some types of changes with will lower the effectiveness of carriers. There is no other way to look at that, than to call it a "nerf".

This states to me that, no matter what your player base wants, your going to do as you see fit.




you are pretty clueles and stuborn aren 't ya?


If they make for hypothetical example: CArriers be able to select between two modules. One that make thieir frighter DPS reach 5 K dps ( 3 times mroe than now) but makes them unable to remote repair. Or using the triage.

Would that be a NERF? NO! WOuld it be a change that make them less effective in combat? Sometime sYES!

Now stop beign a child.

sssenteew
Posted - 2007.11.10 05:49:00 - [1049]
 

I personally think that this has to be one of the worst nerfs ccp has come out with, and i was not to thrilled with the drake nerf. First of all a carrier/Mom should be considered two totally different ship classes (being the fact that the mom cost 25 some odd billion to get, vs the carrers 1 billion, the capacity difference and the amount of training to make it an effective ship.)
All the people complaining about getting killed by a carrier should just shut up and stop complaining imo, first of all if a person is in a mom and has the ability to kill you, he probably deserves the kill (considering once again how long it takes to get into one of these things and make it effective.) Now i understand you dont want it to be so powerfull it can take on any ship class out there solo, so limit the amount of scout attack drones it can launch, then slow the fighters down with their tracking speed and etc... so they cant hit anything below a bs very well. If you limit the amount of fighters down to five in a mom and do the exact same limitation to a carrier then what is the point of spending the 24 some odd billion extra for a mom? You are slowly making ships like the mom and titan obsolete and useless... If the mom can only do the exact same thing as a carrier all it is, is an over glorified carrier that cost out the ***. There is no reason that the mom or carrier should be able to kill anything and everything solo, i understand that but are you taking into consideration the fact that if a carrier is moving to go to a fleet battle and as it jumps into a system a single dread is there, then that carrier is a complete loss without a fight, if it can only launch 5 fighters and the cyno layer has either 1.) no drone skills to speak of, or 2.) is locked up by the cyno for 5 more minutes so it cant help then how is a carrier suppose to defend its self? if it can only launch 5 fighters there isnt a snowballs chance in hell that it could ever even break a shield tank of a moros. As for the motherships what about a point where you are moving it and dont have any backup since you cant dock and you cant insure it what is to stop a gang of some gank battleships from popping your 25+ billion isk ship from going down the tube without any fight to speak ofMad if it can only launch 5 fighters what is the difference besides appearence,cost, size and tank capacity between a mom and a carrier????
You may be trying to please the public that are complaining about dieing to a mom in low sec because it had to many drones and killed it to fast.... well considering it takes a mom what 20 seconds to lock a bs with sensor boosters in (which is plenty of time for a bs to get off into warp), and plus someone who has worked that hard to get a ship like a nyx, wyvern, hel, aeon, thanatos, chimera, nid, and a archon, and make it worth anything in a fight really deserves to be able to launch more than the average person ( what is the point of taking away a carrier/moms only defence/offense, in a solo gank against it? You really expect people to sit there and pay any sort of money for a ship like that once it is useless? With that big of a risk i know i wouldnt... There is absolutly no reason that this nerf should ever leave the forums (imo), i once again thing that this would cause the moms and eventually maybe even the carriers to go obsolete, and with them the pilots that have the ability to fly them effectively because i personally know people who fly them and have spent plenty of time playing and earing their ships, why should they have to give up all that (what will be made wasted) time just because some noobs complain about being popped in low sec by a mom or carrier, first of all if you cant handle the heat get out of the kitchen (i personally think that is the best fitting statement i could possibly make) (aka for those of you who didnt connect the dots if you cant handle low sec/ 0.0 THEN JUST LEAVE!!!! and im sorry if that sounds harsh MadMadMadMadMadSadSadSadSad

sssenteew
Posted - 2007.11.10 05:57:00 - [1050]
 

Originally by: Bishop Malkori
CCP-

You are becoming worse than a DJ sampling his own music- Quit nerfing your past ships and introduce new ships. As you admit Kieron your crew made the problems and how your going to punish my clients for your short comings. To train for carrier with needed skills to use it is a huge amount of time. Time = subscription = paying you not to be inventive enough to come up with new Races or ships just keep tweaking ship that already exist and messing with eve's hardcore subscribers so you can be lazy and not come out with new carriers or new Fighters or better battleships or carrier killer ships or at the very least work on making the Dread more than a one show pony.

Nice job Kieron you have again not listened to feed back if there are 10K members of eve that are carrier pilots that have invested the time and effort to fly them quit messing with us. How about you kieron and your team are the really just command ship pilots that got your butts handed to you by carriers?

All in all you have tweaked and killed the best ships in the game you kill the carrier and the faction ships and with all the new MMO's coming out you might see a massively multi exodus from eve you blockheads.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!
if anything you should stop listening to all the noobs complaining about dying in low sec and tell them to stick to high sec till they can handle it, god knows you have told my m8 to look into other games if he cant handle the aspects of the game, what is any differet here?? its just a bunch of cry babies b****ing about dying because they cant handle it....
If anything dont continue nerfing your old (much liked/favored) ships, build new ones to counter them, create some that can lock them down, disable them, or atleast slow them down, instead of making it impossible for them to have a snowballs chance in hell of surviving.


Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 : last (38)

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