Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
any good reason why pretty ever single expansion for the last 2-3 years were sealed with **** of caldari fleet? :Drake, HMLs/tengus, now i see raven got a kick in the nuts too. wtf? raven was the weakest BS in this game for the last like 2 years as it is .. so you decided to work on that and nerf it even more? WHY...? just.. WHY? |
Dave Stark
3078
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
this thread will go far, i can see it now... |
Ifly Uwalk
Empire Tax Collection Agency
755
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
places, even. |
Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Krautz WH Exploration and Production
68
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
You heard about the recent Cruise Missile Changes? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1999
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:"dear" CCCP
Complaining to defunct communist states about Icelandic game companies never turns out well.
|
Alex Sinai
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
98
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
It's because they love Minmatar and hate Caldari. Although lately i think they fallen victims to Amarr. But anyway, why not to kick Caldari ass if such a nice opportunity as expansion presents itself. WHY CCP. Don't let them fly safe! |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Xamiakas wrote:"dear" CCCP Complaining to defunct communist states about Icelandic game companies never turns out well. well, if you`re in this game for more than say 2-3 months, you`ll know what they`ve deserved the "Cccp" for.. :D |
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Xamiakas wrote:"dear" CCCP Complaining to defunct communist states about Icelandic game companies never turns out well. well, if you`re in this game for more than say 2-3 months, you`ll know what they`ve deserved the "Cccp" for.. :D
Explain "You are even dumber than everyone says." - Kristopher Rocancourt
Tell The Others |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1553
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
I too hate it when they nerf something by increasing the damage it can produce.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
237
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:43:00 -
[10] - Quote
I hate it when people complain about things that directly affect me, forcing me to actually find and review the patch notes to see what's changed and realizing I've been trolled. On the other hand, that Raven 4 jumps over that's outrageously priced at 200 mil seems attractive all of a sudden. |
|
Paul Panala
Beyond the Shadows
21
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
All of the Raven pilots I know are really happy about the patch. You need to look at both the hull changes and the changes to cruise missiles.
As far as the Drake, yeah, as a Drake pilot I was frustrated about the changes...but I have to admit. The old Drake did seem OP compared to other Ballecruisers. I think they may have gone a little too far in nerfing it, in my opinion at least.
Give CCP some credit, they are doing a HUGE rebalance. They may not get everything right. We already saw they went back and tweaked a few of the same ships again in this patch. Sometimes it is hard to predict what will happen when you change 20 ships at a time. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2001
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I too hate it when they nerf something by increasing the damage it can produce.
Yea, damn those opposite day nerfs lol.
|
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I too hate it when they nerf something by increasing the damage it can produce.
humor me: tell me how exactly keeping the bonuses as they were, low slot number - as it was.. and taking one high slot away results in higher damage potential? |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
454
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Xamiakas wrote:"dear" CCCP Complaining to defunct communist states about Icelandic game companies never turns out well.
Defunct? Pfft.
If you want to know more, go to the UN and look behind the "Russia" sign on thier desk.
Polar glory can be launched at any time if enough whine warrant a takeover of the Icelandic assets. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
544
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
Saheed Cha'chris'ra wrote:You heard about the recent Cruise Missile Changes? This. The Raven may have actually been crowned king of PVE again with these changes. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
234
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:any good reason why pretty ever single expansion for the last 2-3 years were sealed with **** of caldari fleet? :Drake, HMLs/tengus, now i see raven got a kick in the nuts too. wtf? raven was the weakest BS in this game for the last like 2 years as it is .. so you decided to work on that and nerf it even more? WHY...? just.. WHY?
Raven - buffed.
Scorpion - buffed.
Navy Drake - introduced.
Drake - rebalanced, HAM Drakes work well.
Tengu - HML rebalanced the hull itself like all T3 is overpowered.
Caracal - buffed.
Moa - buffed (possibly my favourite blaster boat now).
OP I'm not really seeing reality in the same way as you are, please explain how you feel Caldari ships in general and the Raven in particular have been nerfed rather than just stating it to be so. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
12
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
Paul Panala wrote:All of the Raven pilots I know are really happy about the patch. You need to look at both the hull changes and the changes to cruise missiles.
As far as the Drake, yeah, as a Drake pilot I was frustrated about the changes...but I have to admit. The old Drake did seem OP compared to other Ballecruisers. I think they may have gone a little too far in nerfing it, in my opinion at least.
Give CCP some credit, they are doing a HUGE rebalance. They may not get everything right. We already saw they went back and tweaked a few of the same ships again in this patch. Sometimes it is hard to predict what will happen when you change 20 ships at a time. happy `bout cruise missile changes? excuse where exactly did i mention PVE RAVEN pilots ? and since WHEN hisec PVE should take upper hand to low,null,wh`s again? happy to cruise missile changes?:D that really sounds more like telling me that they`ve buffed caldari cruiser hulls by raping HMLs and supposedly buffing HAMs :D as i`ve said before already.. this isn`t a FAQ for newcomers.. and if "rebalance" you mean the continuation of the few year old tradition by NERFING caldari yet again, you`re actually right :D though, really SHOULD go check the dictionary. don`t know wtf you on about? if you really don`t, apply for a job @ CCCP = you`re a perfect recruit. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
147
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:57:00 -
[18] - Quote
Your Post is too docile, use this thread instead to post Your squeamish little complaints. :)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223608&find=unread
Enter the Arena, join the fray, spill the blood and guts of the other forum gladiators on the floor.
The looser gets nothing but deaeth and the eternal disgrace of his memory, but the winner... +1 internez and maybe, just maybe the attention of our CCP overlords. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard
91
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote: excuse where exactly did i mention PVE RAVEN pilots ?
There are other kinds?
"You are even dumber than everyone says." - Kristopher Rocancourt
Tell The Others |
Danny John-Peter
New Eden Renegades
208
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 13:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
Damn them, increasing the effectiveness of the Raven is clearly a huge nerf.
Pretty much all the T1 hulls in the game are in a good place now, really dont know what everybody is getting there panties in a twist about.
Now CCP, hurry up and buff the HACs. |
|
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
Samillian wrote:Xamiakas wrote:any good reason why pretty ever single expansion for the last 2-3 years were sealed with **** of caldari fleet? :Drake, HMLs/tengus, now i see raven got a kick in the nuts too. wtf? raven was the weakest BS in this game for the last like 2 years as it is .. so you decided to work on that and nerf it even more? WHY...? just.. WHY? Raven - buffed. Scorpion - buffed. Navy Drake - introduced. Drake - rebalanced, HAM Drakes work well. Tengu - HML rebalanced the hull itself like all T3 is overpowered. Caracal - buffed. Moa - buffed (possibly my favourite blaster boat now). OP I'm not really seeing things in the same light you are, please explain how you feel Caldari ships in general and the Raven in particular have been nerfed rather than just stating it to be so. er.. so raping the dps and the ranges on the hml`s is a buff? wait.. WHAT?:D and how is taking slots away from a raven a buff ? |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
15
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Xamiakas wrote: excuse where exactly did i mention PVE RAVEN pilots ? There are other kinds? sorry my dear little cheap troll.. ignored. i`d like to say "cya" but i know i won`t. |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Your Post is too docile, use this thread instead to post Your squeamish little complaints. :) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223608&find=unreadEnter the Arena, join the fray, spill the blood and guts of the other forum gladiators on the floor. The looser gets nothing but death and the eternal disgrace of his memory, but the winner... +1 internez and maybe, just maybe the attention of our CCP overlords. soz, ignored as spam. cy.. er.. nvm. bye |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:07:00 -
[24] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Damn them, increasing the effectiveness of the Raven is clearly a huge nerf.
Pretty much all the T1 hulls in the game are in a good place now, really dont know what everybody is getting there panties in a twist about.
Now CCP, hurry up and buff the HACs. i think you`re a 3rd "really intelligent" person telling me that keeping bonuses the same but lowering the number of slots on the raven was actually a buff.. haven`t seen a single one actually making any sense so far. feel like being the 1st one?:D |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
147
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:09:00 -
[25] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:Debora Tsung wrote:Your Post is too docile, use this thread instead to post Your squeamish little complaints. :) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=223608&find=unreadEnter the Arena, join the fray, spill the blood and guts of the other forum gladiators on the floor. The looser gets nothing but death and the eternal disgrace of his memory, but the winner... +1 internez and maybe, just maybe the attention of our CCP overlords. soz, ignored as spam. cy.. er.. nvm. bye
You can't pretend the part about spilling guts and blood on the floor wasn't awesome. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Kijo Rikki
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
237
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Just briefly,
Quote:Cruise missiles have been overhauled to be a viable weapon system in actual combat. Rate of Fire on all Cruise Missile Launchers has been increased by 5% (as clarification, that means they shoot more often, not less). All Cruise Missile Launcher powergrid needs have been increased by 200. Base velocity for all Cruise Missiles has been increased from 3750m/s to 4700m/s. Base flight time for all Cruise Missiles has been reduced from 20 to 14 seconds. All Cruise Missile damage has been approximately increased by 25%. To compensate, all Cruise Missiles explosion radius has been increased by 10% (meaning they will hit smaller targets for less damage).
Good so far for pve ravens
Quote:All ship passive resistance bonuses have been decreased from 5% to 4% per level to make active tanking more viable in combat. This change affects 44 ships in total (Ibis, Taipan, Merlin, Worm, Harpy, Cambion, Moa, Gila, Eagle, Onyx, Broadsword, Drake, Ferox, Nighthawk, Vulture, Tengu, Loki, Skiff, Mackinaw, Hulk, Rokh, Scorpion Navy Issue, Rattlesnake, Chimera, Wyvern, Impairor, Punisher, Vengeance, Malice, Malediction, Maller, Sacrilege, Mimir, Vangel, Devoter, Phobos, Prophecy, Absolution, Damnation, Loki, Legion, Proteus, Abaddon, Archon, Aeon)
Excellent, the raven is a strong active tanking boat to begin with.
Quote:RAVEN Slot layout: 7H(-1), 7M(+1), 5L; 4 turrets , 6 launchers. Fittings: 11000 PWG(+1500), 750(+50) CPU. Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 7000(-500) / 5800(-841) / 6400(-241). Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / recharge per second) : 5500(+187.5) / 1160s / 4.74. Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 113(+19) / .12(-.008) / 99300000 / 16.52s (-1.1s). Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(-25) / 75. Signature radius: 420(-50).
Oh ...oh! AND we get an extra mid-slot for tanking?
|
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
147
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:i think you`re a 3rd "really intelligent" person telling me that keeping bonuses the same but lowering the number of slots on the raven was actually a buff.. haven`t seen a single one actually making any sense so far. feel like being the 1st one?:D
But... the number of slots wasn't lowered, the Raven got -1 high and +1 mid slot. And it's faster than ever now, and with the additional mid slot for Target painters You can dish out torp level DPS at very long ranges....
Hooray for Cruise missile changes btw. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:15:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kijo Rikki wrote:Just briefly, Quote:Cruise missiles have been overhauled to be a viable weapon system in actual combat. Rate of Fire on all Cruise Missile Launchers has been increased by 5% (as clarification, that means they shoot more often, not less). All Cruise Missile Launcher powergrid needs have been increased by 200. Base velocity for all Cruise Missiles has been increased from 3750m/s to 4700m/s. Base flight time for all Cruise Missiles has been reduced from 20 to 14 seconds. All Cruise Missile damage has been approximately increased by 25%. To compensate, all Cruise Missiles explosion radius has been increased by 10% (meaning they will hit smaller targets for less damage). Good so far for pve ravens what sad sob gives a flying F `bout pve ravens? and WHY would they if they can do better in a drake? faster too btw? :D a high slot less - means one neut less.. or one smarty.. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3019
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:and how is taking slots away from a raven a buff ?
It's been repurposed to an Attack Battleship & cruise missiles, which is the weapon of choice for Raven pilots, have received a significant buff to their performance. Overall the new Raven will perform far better than the old one.
The guy who was sitting next to me in the first nullsec round table who had obviously not had a shower since before boarding his flight to Iceland, you really stank. You know who you are. |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.05 14:17:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Xamiakas wrote:and how is taking slots away from a raven a buff ? It's been repurposed to an Attack Battleship & cruise missiles, which is the weapon of choice for Raven pilots, have received a significant buff to their performance. Overall the new Raven will perform far better than the old one. at pve - yes. at pvp - are you stupid? rhetorical, incase you didn`t get that bit. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |