Pages: [1] 2 |
1. Ship Module Idea: Cyno Disruptor - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
SurrenderMonkey wrote: Cyno inhibs already exist, and the limitations of their functionality are there for a reason. This seems to be trying to bypass those limitations, in which case, why even have them in the first place? Current ones are s...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2017.06.16 19:55:05
|
2. Ship Module Idea: Cyno Disruptor - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Purpose: Allow pilots to roam null freely without worries of constantly being hot-dropped. Function: While activated, disables the cyno fields of nearby ships and prevents new cyno fields from being activated. This affects all cyno fields, includ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2017.06.16 19:48:34
|
3. Fanfest 2017 Official Unofficial Poker Tournament! - in Out of Game Events and Gatherings [original thread]
How do we know if we got in?
- by Worthy Angel - at 2017.04.04 00:44:41
|
4. Monthly Meetup - DC / VA / MD Area - in Out of Game Events and Gatherings [original thread]
Great time chatting with everyone! Smaller group this time, but looking forward to the next one.
- by Worthy Angel - at 2017.03.26 00:26:42
|
5. Improvements for Jump Fatigue - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
1. Slot 1 booster that reduces the accumulation of jump fatigue, but gives potential negative bonuses to tanking or weapons. 2. Slot 1-6 implants which reduce the accumulation of jump fatigue while implanted. 3. A ship rig which reduces accumulati...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.09.05 18:40:14
|
6. What sov could have been (battleship buff idea) - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Danika Princip wrote: The old system is dead and gone. Fozziesove is a new kind of awful, but it's what we have. 2000 DPS BS wouldn't have saved dominion sov, tracking dreads/titans and fighters would still have annihilated them, and the big t...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 22:04:17
|
7. What sov could have been (battleship buff idea) - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Danika Princip wrote: ...How do you see that working then? And Why? The whole point would be, under the old sov system, it would have given small groups that only wanted to hold a handful of systems an effective and cheap-ish way to defend ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 21:39:44
|
8. What sov could have been (battleship buff idea) - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Danika Princip wrote: So how much EHP do you want your 2000 DPS battleships to have? And what is the counter to them if you want them to ignore bombs? HAW dreads? Fighters? Reread my post, I had removed the EHP buff from the suggestion prior...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 21:28:35
|
9. What sov could have been (battleship buff idea) - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Zan Shiro wrote: Zhilia Mann wrote: What part of this is untrue today? from the EHP boost buried in the post they seem to be asking for a half assed baby dread. Half assed as they just want EHP....and not the usual uber weapon option ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 21:08:34
|
10. What sov could have been (battleship buff idea) - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Zhilia Mann wrote: Worthy Angel wrote: Dread: -Significantly more expensive. -Significantly higher DPS and range (w/ siege). -More mobile (via jump drive). -Worse against subcapitals. Battleship: -Fairly cheap with insurance. -Lower DPS and...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 20:58:16
|
11. What sov could have been (battleship buff idea) - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
I know that the current sov system was set up in order to give the "little guy" a chance to own sov instead of just alliances with capitals, but as some have noted, it doesn't always produce enormous, exciting fights like the old sov system did. I...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 19:20:03
|
12. Return all ships to at least 3.0 AU warp speed. Dev PLEASE read. - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
I would get rid of lone warp speed rigs/modules altogether, and simply tie the bonus into overdrive injectors and thruster rigs, giving them slightly more utility over nanofibers and polycarbon rigs, which I believe are generally used over the for...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.08.22 16:19:33
|
13. Minor art issue with Caracal Navy Issue - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
The missile launcher placement on this ship is driving me crazy. Current placement is: 1 right wing 1 rear center 2 left wing 2 front center When it should be: 2 right wing 2 left wing 2 front center (or 2 rear center since it looks like there ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.06.23 18:11:15
|
14. Improving Overheating - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Overheating is not bad as a game feature, but it definitely has its flaws. Primarily, it's unpredictable. There are very few mechanics in the game that use RNG, the two major ones IMO being turret damage and ECM. However, the effect of turret RNG ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.30 04:00:58
|
15. Ship Heat Modules - Microwave Emitter/Coolant Injector/Heat Capacito... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Ship heat is something that doesn't have much depth in the game as it is. You can overheat modules to improve their performance, then repair damage that is dealt via Nanite Paste, but there isn't much else. The three modules I propose would intera...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.28 01:41:07
|
16. New Module: Ejection Jammer - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Midslot Module 30 CPU, 1 PG Range: 5km Activation Cost: 5 GJ Cycle Time: 5 seconds The module interferes with the target ship's capsule ejection system, preventing operation in the case of ship destruction. The end result is that the pilot is "po...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.26 02:54:23
|
17. ECM-Jamming - Discussion - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Rather than preventing locks, ECM could instead break your locks and remove all objects from your overview while activated. Would still screw you over in most situations, although you could at least manually lock something if you clicked on it on ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.23 18:50:25
|
18. Focused Bombs - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Danika Princip wrote: But why should one squad of bombers become the absolute best anti structure thing possible? Unless CCP has changed their mind, damage to Citadels will be limited on a per-time basis, thus a massive wing of bombers would ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.23 02:21:14
|
19. Focused Bombs - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Khan Wrenth wrote: Because it would be imbalanced as heck. A wave of bombers already do massive damage to a target. With the upcoming ability to web things (even if there's resistance), means that it's entirely possible to keep a capital ship ...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.23 02:18:44
|
20. Focused Bombs - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Why doesn't CCP add focused versions of the damage-causing bombs (Concussion, Electron, Scorch, Shrapnel) like they did with Void Bombs? They could be used to help take down capitals (or citadels) by fleets without their own large number of capita...
- by Worthy Angel - at 2016.04.23 01:19:39
|
Pages: [1] 2 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |