EVE Forums

Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2006-02-03 18:57
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-15 13:56
  • Number of Posts: 157
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 106

Pink Marshmellow

Security Status 2.0
  • Caucasian Culture Club Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • polarized massively blob some farmers, then bat-phone ash alliance. afterwards they brag about it. in EVE Gameplay Center

    This is hardly surprising from Polarized who claim overwhelmingly outnumbering someone and winning (despite taking 3 hours

    and losing a bunch of ships while at it) is a "good fight"

    Just like how they lapped up Max LeadFoot's story about a "gudfight".

    If you're going to evict you should straight up say it, instead of jumbling up to everyone including your allies about a "fight".

    There is no need to mince words when everyone can clearly see the truth.

    If you want to talk a "good fight"

    the one with Blood Union and W-space is one.

  • New Ewar Module for Minmatar in EVE Technology and Research Center

    You need to realize stacking penalties. Once you buff a certain attribute to a certain point, there no point of adding any more for a very minimal increase.

    Target painter buffs an attribute that is separate from TC/TE.

  • [Winter] New destroyers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I realize that you're trying to bring variety, but variety comes from differences between ship classes more than differences within ship classes.

    A destroyer is a anti-frigate platform. The issue with the destroyers is that they are more fragile than the buffed frigates, these new destroyers also suffer from the lack of fitting that the old destroyers have.

    The caldari and minmatar seem somewhat fine, but the gallente one definitely needs a makeover and the amarr one seems like something that could use a bit more thought into.

    None of these destroyers have the fitting to utilize their full potential.

  • Why Archon? in EVE Gameplay Center

    The archon has a tanking bonus to improve survive-ability (only need to fit one faction/deadspace enam to compare to fitting two on the thanatos/nidhoggur for same resists)

    Has a cap transfer range bonus which you make make them into giant pantheon guardians.

    Have no problems fitting for tank unlike the Nidhoggur (which fails can't tank the same tank that it RRs) and the Chimera (needs pimp to even fit).

    Lots of lowslots that you can put Capacitor Power relays on and has no affect on tank compared to shield. (relays > rechargers: 24% vs 20%)

    Last but not least it has the largest capacitor size of all the carriers, making it the hardest carrier to neut out.

    In all this makes the Archon the best triage carrier.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Medium LR guns are largely pointless weapons, they're really not spectacular in my opinion.

    In Warp Disruptor range, Medium LR guns are pretty crap. Medium SR guns are better overall. Medium LR guns eat up more pg and use more cap. They have much inferior tracking and dps in exchange for long range.

    Conclusion: Medium LR guns sacrifice too many things for longer range and make them inferior to their shorter range counterparts.

    You want to hit and kill targets 30+ km you use Large SR guns like 800mm and Mega Pulse.

    You want to hit and kill targets beyond 50 km you use 1400mm, 425mm, and Tachyon Beams.

    I have tech 2 Medium LR spec for all 3 turret types, but I have never used them.

    Medium LR spec, to me is just a stepping stone to get to the much superior Large LR spec.

    I am disappointed in CCP's idea of balancing medium sized LR weapons. Yes they balanced HML to be more inline with other medium LR weapons, but they have given no incentive to use LR medium weapons in general.

  • [Winter] Attack Cruisers in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Onslaughtor wrote:
    Takeshi Yamato wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Takeshi Yamato wrote:
    Quad Beams were stillborns.

    Fixed the OP

    Were they missing from the list? If so, that's not what I was referring to. I meant to say that they have always been useless.

    Any chance to change them to pulse lasers? Ideally, a tier of pulse lasers between heavy and focused.

    On the frigate level, there are 3 tiers of pulse lasers and 2 tiers of beam lasers.

    On the cruiser & battleship level, there are 2 tiers of pulse lasers and 3 tiers of beam lasers and basically nobody uses the low tier beam laser (Quad Beam and Dual Heavy Beam).

    Aw but this is where your wrong my friend. Because of the massively less PWG & CPU that Quads use you can fit the ship with a lot of power amplifying module, effectively making the guns better in all ways than focused pulse. Also because of there crazy ROF as is, the bonus the ship gives amplifies it considerably. With the new changes this could be mitigated but I'm really looking forward to seeing how much tank i can squeeze on my omen with these changes.

    +1 for me.

    Quad beams have shorter range than medium beams (small sized variants). And they use aurora which performs poorly in the range it operates.

  • [Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Watch me fit all my ships with tracking disruptors.

    Watch everyone fit tracking disruptors on their ship.

    Watch everyone whine that they can't kill each other or its taking forever.

    CCP nerfs TD to oblivion and makes its useless for 3 years.

    CCP balancing process sucks it takes forever just to change a few digits.

    You still haven't fix core philosophy problems with Gallente ships being slow armor tank and having the shortest range guns.

    Railguns are the biggest POS of eve.

  • Vagabond gets its ears back! Now with added Tempest!! in EVE Gameplay Center

    The Stabber/Vagabond looks likes a mean serpent.

    Does that mean we should be flying these ships with a Snake Set?

  • In what ways do the other T3 cruisers beat the Tengu in EVE Gameplay Center

    Absolutions are better laser buffer boats than legions will ever be.

    Nearly the same EHP, but the Absolution has more Resists, while the legion has more hitpoints. In an RR gang the Absolution shines over legion. In engagements where most fights occur in T2 warp disruptor range (24km) the range bonus on the Legion doesn't mean as much.

    The Tengu do better in K-space than Wormholes since fights usually occur in 5 km of a wormhole. A tengu will be webbed and neuted before it can burn away from a wormhole by a well organized gang.

    The Loki with fed navy webs that reach 35km and can hold a Tengu down with dual webs with ease. It makes a poor shield tank when put in a web configuration. Its armor tank is weaker than legion or the proteus, but better than Tengu.

    The Proteus is ideal for wormhole space because of the very short engagement range battles. The proteus has high dps, but has very short range even with the falloff bonus and null ammo. Lots of time wasted burning into range to shoot a target.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Liang Nuren wrote:
    Pink Marshmellow wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:

    So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately?


    Oh look 500 man Maelstrom Blobs. Nerf Maelstroms.


    Oh look Liang Navy Apocalypse Blobs. Nerf NAPOCS.

    Nerf hurricanes, Abaddons, Tempests, bombers.

    That's not actually what I was getting at. I was showing the basic fallacy behind the argument that any particular expensive ship is needed to engage the blob when outnumbered. If the power differential is there, eventually the blob will be flying exactly the same ship - and now where does that leave everyone? In a much worse state than before.


    All I can see from your posts is that you have some strong hate against Tech 3 ships, but don't clearly show why they are unbalanced and how they should be balanced.

    All I hear from you is that you say Tech 3 are OP, because its OP and throw words like ez mode solopwnmobile. You blame Tech 3 ships for the fault of gameplay design of other ships.

    Why don't you go ask some 0.0 sovereignty alliances why they don't field HAC's or CS much?

    You are wrong about everyone flying the same ship, because every ship has a specific weakness. Only a fool would have a fleet composed of the nothing but one ship.

    A fleet flying nothing but tengus? Simple have everyone fit a kinetic hardener, have some firewall setup, webbing, neuts, and there you go.

    Liang Nuren wrote:

    If a dev made a post telling us that Crystals were getting nerfed, I'd simply shrug and say it was good while it lasted. Yeah I'd basically be out a few billion but it's not that big of a deal. I've got lots of ISK.

    That's like me rolling my eyes whenever someone steals my car, because I have billions of cars. Perhaps I wouldn't care if we were all missing one car, but there are people would be hurt much more and be unhappy about it.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Liang Nuren wrote:

    So how do you explain the 200+ man Tengu blobs in null sec lately?


    Oh look 500 man Maelstrom Blobs. Nerf Maelstroms.


    Oh look Liang Navy Apocalypse Blobs. Nerf NAPOCS.

    Nerf hurricanes, Abaddons, Tempests, bombers.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Liang justifies Crystals as valid because of how expensive they are.

    Then turns around and says that Tech 3 ships are invalid and that costs are not a valid balancing factor.

    Liang Nuren wrote:
    The truth of the matter is that Crystals are very expensive and very powerful. I've been able to do some patently ridiculous things by combining them with some intelligent piloting. I'd say that their cost is relatively well balanced by how useful they are.

    He then dismisses that ISK should not be a balancing factor, but says that Crystals are fine for the massive bonus they give because they are expensive.

    You tell me that's not being hypocritical.

    Liang is a person who only likes reason when it suits his interests, but ignores it when it doesn't.

    I have shown several times over that Tech 3 ships do not obsolete Tech 2 ships. Tech 2 ships do their specialized job better than Tech 3 ships, and the only thing that Tech 3 overshadows are HAC's which are mostly bad and are superceded by even Tech 1 ships.

    Tech 3 vs Tech 2

    Ewar - Tech 2 - Much Superior
    Logistics - Tech 2 - Tech 3 logi has no range and no cap reduction that Logi has.
    Interdiction - Tech 2 no contest - Tech 3 doesn't exist.
    Heavy Assault - Tech 3 beats Tech 2, because Tech 2 are inferior to to even Battlecruisers and Faction Cruisers.

    Liang ignores this reason completely and states that Tech 3 ships should be nerfed because they have some tank, dps and are "quasi recons" and make Tech 2 ships pointless.

    Recon capabilities of Tech 3 are weak in comparison to Tech 2.

    The Falcon has 30% bonus to jammer strength, Tengu is only 10%?
    The Legion only has 10% bonus to Neut amount, the Curse has 20% Neut Strength and 40% range AND bonus to Tracking Disruptor.

    The Loki has 30% web range bonus. The Rapier has 60% range bonus AND target painting bonus.
    The Proteus has 10% scram range. The Arazu has 20% point range AND sensor dampening bonus.

    Tech 2 at large are superior in their specialties than Tech 3 as they are supposed to.

    Conclusion: Liang does not show proper proof and reasoning. And makes weak blanket statements. He contradicts himself.

  • In what ways do the other T3 cruisers beat the Tengu in EVE Gameplay Center

    Liang Nuren wrote:
    Zyella Stormborn wrote:
    Veryez wrote:
    The legion also can be setup as a 'super pilgrim', I know a few people who swear by them.

    Now this got my attention. I may have to look into that, I love that Pilgrim. ;)

    There any threads discussing the fit? I never heard of this fit before now.

    I was discussing this with Valleria Darkmoon last night and it appears that the idea originated on SHC and has been mentioned a few times in R&K videos. Apparently it has ~350K EHP, the neut, and drone subsystems. It's entire job is to neut the **** out of whatever is nearby and is supported by Guardians. I can't imagine it being easy to shake with 350k EHP, fantastic resists, and a cruiser sig radius.


    Show me this 350k EHP, Drone sub, Neut legion.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Liang Nuren wrote:
    I think that accusing *everyone* that's in favor of a T3 nerf of being idiots/noobs that die to them all the time is utterly incorrect. I'd counter by saying that *everyone* who can't recognize how incredibly OP they are either has a financial motive (eg, they live in a Wormhole like Verge does) or they can't bear giving up their Win Button.

    But we'd both be wrong, now wouldn't we?


    You talk crap about how ISK should not be a balancing factor, yet you fly around with Crystal Implants: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12135625

    What if tomorrow we nerfed Crystals from 50% -> only 10% bonus to shield boosting, what say you about that?

    Oh nice Proteus fit: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=12001766

    You got your ass kicked in a T3 ship, yet you say they are OP.

    I question your ideas about PVP: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11877831

    Do we as EVE players really want someone like you to be the source of balancing?

    You claim that we are biased, yet have you looked in the mirror? Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb.

  • Abandoned Towers just about every WH I've visited. in EVE Gameplay Center

    First off a powerless tower should have no shields whatsoever. Making it easier to kill.

    And/Or a hacking module that anchors the tower in an certain amount of time that warns the owner. A few hours at most.

    To those who disagree: If you don't like any of these then keep your tower fueled. If you don't want to be responsible with your tower, then someone else will.

  • PI for isk in EVE Gameplay Center

    Trying to make P4 products is a waste of time and effort and does not yield you as much profit as making P2's that yield the highest profit per unit cycle.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Before we jump the gun on re-balancing Tech 3 ships, we have a very very very very long list of ships that require immediate fixing before hand.

    Before you reach the top you have to start from the very bottom.

    I see many people having knee-jerk whiny reactions of nerfing this ship or buffing that certain ship.

    CCP is in the process of rebalancing the ENTIRE SHIP LINE, not just tech 2 ship or tech 3.

    Before we fix problems in other places, we should fix the problems in our own.

    Most T1 cruisers are crap, only 25% of cruisers are worth flying.

    Tier 1 BC are overshadowed by Tier 2 Counter parts.

    Battleships mostly fallen out of favor to BCs.

    Before we look at Tech 3 ships we gotta take a look at Tech 2 ships, many Tech 2 ships are broken and many not worth using.

    Electronic Attack Frigates - Only time I really see them much is in tournaments. Not point in these when you have more durable and powerful recon ships.

    Interdictors- there is only one ship you should care about and that's the sabre.

    HACs - is in a powercreep struggle with Faction ships and Battlecruisers.

    Commandship - EOS lulz, less slots and hitpoints than Tier 2 BC counterparts. Active tanking is fail for FLEETs.

    Black Ops- More Titans than black ops flown, nuff said.

    Marauders - Faction/Pirate Battleships are mostly better in every aspect, salvage while shooting is a multitasking nightmare.

    Once this goes through the standards will change. There will be greater diversity and equality. (assuming CCP does not facepalm fail)

  • T3 nerf (xpost from ships and fittings) in EVE Gameplay Center

    Terrorfrodo wrote:
    I hope they nerf Tech3 good Twisted The fact that almost everyone who has the ISK uses them for almost anything, shows they are too good. I'm rather tired of all those 90% T3 fleets. I'd like to see more HACs and Command Ships in the mix.

    Another benefit of this is that when fleets are not made up purely of cruiser hulls anymore, battleships could be used more often in wormhole pvp. Currently there's usually no point in bringing a battleship because you cannot apply your dps to all those cruisers whirling around. If there are more battlecruiser hulls around, you have targets for your battleship. And if you bring a battleship, others might do so too, which means even more targets for battleships. Bring on the battleships!

    But, I guess this change is a long time away Straight

    Battleships are not used in wormholes because the large mass they take up is not worth what they can bring. For one battleships I can bring 10 cruisers or 6 battlecruiser sized ships.

    They are slow and cumbersome and most wormhole engagements occur very up close which does not fare well it the bad tracking of large weapons.

    by your reasoning we should nerf logistic ships as well since they're in 90% of fleets.

    Most HAC's are lame and are obsolete by cheaper and overall better ships like Battlecruisers.

    Command ships are lame, they have less hp and less slots than their tier 2 BC counterparts.

    Before you go to the top you'll have to start from the very bottom, which is exactly what CCP is doing. They are balancing lower class ships like t1 frigs first. Then destroyers, then cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, capitals, and finally their tech 2 counter parts.

    Then finally Tech 3 ships. Think of it as traveling up a pyramid.

    Everything will radically change, fits we know today will be obsolete tomorrow. Ships that have never seen daylight will fly again. Rather than a game where only a handful of ships are worth flying, it will be a game where every ship will have their place and uses. Tiericide and role rebalancing in the path and the future of EVE.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    A tech 3 ship is not some solopwnmobile. Of course a more expensive ship should beat its cheaper counterpart in a 1 vs 1 situation with equal pilots.

    Tech 3 ship will fare against one and possible maybe, just maybe 2 cheaper ships. But anymore than that and the tech 3 will die like any other ship. There are simple ways to counter t3 ships such as neuting, ewar, etc. It may take longer for it to die, but it will die nonetheless.

    Tech 3 are not like titans where a handful of titans can blap and defeat fleets of ships. In terms of cost balance, they are balanced. You would have to have a 10 to 1 kill/death ratio to put break even.

    Why are HAC's little used, well because there are simply better ships for the cost.

    Tier 2 Battlecruisers, Tier 3 Battlecruisers can do nearly the same job that HAC's can do for less isk, SP and yield better results.

    The Vagabond has a ship superior to it, and its not the loki, its called the Cynabal.

    The Vigilant is the Deimos done right.

    The Cerberus not worth using over the cheaper and superior Drake.

    The Zealot, meh long range Oracles are better or a Harbinger makes a better brawling close range ship.

    The Muninn pff forget that when you have the Hurricane and Tornado.

    The Eagle? Hahaha Go fly a Naga or use heavy missile platforms.

    Ishtar? Meh there are the gila and dominix.

  • Faction Battlecruisers - Would they work? in EVE Gameplay Center

    Liang argues that the Proteus is op claiming that it outdpses the CS counterparts. I counter saying that a proteus can't outdps a astarte without using more mods.

    Liang counters using a fail fit, that when pointed out how fail it was, he tries to cover up the fact by saying that I was demanding as "fail EFT warrior fit", when I have never claimed so.

    Conclusion: Liang is trolling or being dumb.

    All this crying about T3 is what I see as "No fair my 100 million ship can't easily solo a 500+ million ship! I demand a nerf!"

    If I were to apply this argument, T2 HAC's shouldn't "obsolete" T1 counterparts, but they do.