Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 263 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
126
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:42:00 -
[3571] - Quote
Yeah the Rokh and Abaddon are awesome PvP Ships.
PS: And the Gallente Ships do have some Major drawbacks in large Fleets... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
501
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:46:00 -
[3572] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:Yeah the Rokh and Abaddon are awesome PvP Ships.
PS: And the Gallente Ships do have some Major backdraws in large Fleets...
As do rokh and baddon. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
62
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:51:00 -
[3573] - Quote
Critical Issue wrote:This thread is still alive ?
I said we need a Juggernaut.
Don't worry, well be home by Christmas. If in doubt...do...excessively. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
126
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 10:56:00 -
[3574] - Quote
The only Thing i really admit is that CCP buff brawling overall, maybe because it brings more Action into our Spreadsheet, i dunno.
But sure that means it pushes the already Good Blaster and Gallente seems pretty OP but, with some letdowns like bad resistance pattern, odd 50/50 Optimal+Falloff, Them/Kin Damage only, very High Signature, kinda low speed and bonuses to activ tanking i think they do have some pretty "Good" disadventages. |
Cassius Invictus
Thou shalt not kill Exiled Ones
22
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 11:20:00 -
[3575] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:The only Thing i really admit is that CCP buff brawling overall, maybe because it brings more Action into our Spreadsheet, i dunno.
But sure that means it pushes the already Good Blaster and Gallente seems pretty OP but, with some letdowns like bad resistance pattern, odd 50/50 Optimal+Falloff, Them/Kin Damage only, very High Signature, kinda low speed and bonuses to activ tanking i think they do have some pretty "Good" disadventages.
I fully agree. I really wish gallentian pilots have thier 7,5 rep bonus replaced with something that buffs both acticve and pssive tanking. However since Gallente relly on thier dps and not tank - contrary to amarr, I fear that one day Gallente will be better at both tanking and dps (the way it seems to be going). |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
389
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 11:27:00 -
[3576] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Critical Issue wrote:This thread is still alive ?
I said we need a Juggernaut. Don't worry, well be home by Christmas.
Doctor Who? Stupidity should be a bannable offense.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
62
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 11:44:00 -
[3577] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Critical Issue wrote:This thread is still alive ?
I said we need a Juggernaut. Don't worry, well be home by Christmas. Doctor Who? 1st Battalion of the Mid-Kent Volunteers 1914 If in doubt...do...excessively. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
353
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 12:47:00 -
[3578] - Quote
Cassius Invictus wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:The only Thing i really admit is that CCP buff brawling overall, maybe because it brings more Action into our Spreadsheet, i dunno.
But sure that means it pushes the already Good Blaster and Gallente seems pretty OP but, with some letdowns like bad resistance pattern, odd 50/50 Optimal+Falloff, Them/Kin Damage only, very High Signature, kinda low speed and bonuses to activ tanking i think they do have some pretty "Good" disadventages. I fully agree. I really wish gallentian pilots have thier 7,5 rep bonus replaced with something that buffs both acticve and pssive tanking. However since Gallente relly on thier dps and not tank - contrary to amarr, I fear that one day Gallente will be better at both tanking and dps (the way it seems to be going).
If you compare 2 equivalently fitted ships, the hyperion and abaddon, you find that the gallente ship self-repairs about 10% better than the amarr, but the amarr ship has 10% more EHP and is 10% more efficient at receiving remote repair.
The hyperion does a lot more damage at close range but cannot engage beyond 20km. The abaddon does less damage but can engage out to about 47km - about twice as far.
I chose these 2 ships because they have similar slot layouts.
For solo brawling you'd want the hyperion - if there are 2 of you, it's probably too close to call. If there are 3 or more of you, I think you'd want the abaddon in preference to the hyperion.
It seems fairly balanced to me. I use a hyperion for pvp but the number of situations in which it is better than an amarr ship are quite few - you have to pick your fights.
In gang pvp I'd rather have some amarr ships around me - they're stronger and more versatile.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1223
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 12:56:00 -
[3579] - Quote
So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon? Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Rekon X
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 13:17:00 -
[3580] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:For the love of God stop introducing new skills and modules for no reason and just balance the ships. This Bastion thing will be incredibly OP in niche PvP situations and most PvE situations and incredibly useless the rest of the time.
I tend to agree with this. Give them a little more power grid and cpu for some versatility and leave them alone.
Plugging in a gimmick in an attempt to adapt it to a roll it was never intended for, I don't see that going over.
If this is what you think you need, create another class of ship, minidread.
Nerfing the drone bay locks you into smalls or mediums. How about leaving the drone bay the way it is? |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
501
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 13:30:00 -
[3581] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon?
I hope not
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
63
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 13:49:00 -
[3582] - Quote
Ohhh, don't worry, thers more to come.
Iv got my popcorn ready for the inevitable flood of rage to follow the next version If in doubt...do...excessively. |
Xicho
Damned Yankees Insidious Empire
6
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 13:51:00 -
[3583] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon?
Are you brain dead? This is an idea for the winter expansion, and a first pass at that.
Be patient. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1225
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:03:00 -
[3584] - Quote
Xicho wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon? Are you brain dead? This is an idea for the winter expansion, and a first pass at that. Be patient.
Actually, we are on the 2nd pass. And with HAC's, if I remember correctly, there were only 2 passes before they showed up on Sisi. Same with command ships. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
502
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 14:36:00 -
[3585] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Xicho wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon? Are you brain dead? This is an idea for the winter expansion, and a first pass at that. Be patient. Actually, we are on the 2nd pass. And with HAC's, if I remember correctly, there were only 2 passes before they showed up on Sisi. Same with command ships.
Do you even READ the thread? THey said they will leave it for a while.. and return at marauders in FUTURE before the expansion. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4608
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:11:00 -
[3586] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Xicho wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon? Are you brain dead? This is an idea for the winter expansion, and a first pass at that. Be patient. Actually, we are on the 2nd pass. And with HAC's, if I remember correctly, there were only 2 passes before they showed up on Sisi. Same with command ships. Traditionally yes, but this time (probably because they are kicking this around early in their development schedule, and because it's pretty revolutionary) they were pretty specific that they had several other viable concepts to bounce off of us before they chose a path. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
387
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:31:00 -
[3587] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: Traditionally yes, but this time (probably because they are kicking this around early in their development schedule, and because it's pretty revolutionary) they were pretty specific that they had several other viable concepts to bounce off of us before they chose a path.
I can only hope these other viable concepts they had are in fact more viable than what they've proposed thus far. :\ |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4610
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:40:00 -
[3588] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Traditionally yes, but this time (probably because they are kicking this around early in their development schedule, and because it's pretty revolutionary) they were pretty specific that they had several other viable concepts to bounce off of us before they chose a path.
I can only hope these other viable concepts they had are in fact more viable than what they've proposed thus far. :\ Agreed, although the first one wasn't bad with a few adjustments. I still think there are other options to look at however, same as you. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
64
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:57:00 -
[3589] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Aglais wrote:Ranger 1 wrote: Traditionally yes, but this time (probably because they are kicking this around early in their development schedule, and because it's pretty revolutionary) they were pretty specific that they had several other viable concepts to bounce off of us before they chose a path.
I can only hope these other viable concepts they had are in fact more viable than what they've proposed thus far. :\ Agreed, although the first one wasn't bad with a few adjustments. I still think there are other options to look at however, same as you. One of the more interesting proposals iv seen was a pretty big resistance to overheating, not immunity so as to leave you the ability to effectively whelp yourself.
I like the idea that the hull would have an incentive to explore the more advanced aspects of flying and beating you up for overreaching If in doubt...do...excessively. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
64
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 15:58:00 -
[3590] - Quote
That's not to say that I want it, just thought it'd be interesting If in doubt...do...excessively. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1287
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:20:00 -
[3591] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So....CCP...any more comments on this mess, or are these stats now engraved in wet concrete, and we will see them on Sisi soon? I hope not
they should unsticky this thread as both ideas were thrown in the can and they have gone back to theory crafting... dont expect an update for a while. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Wolfgang Achari
Morior Invictus. The Retirement Club
4
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:40:00 -
[3592] - Quote
I've gone ahead and checked out of this discussion, because honestly at this point I'm not seeing the point in increasing the PvP viability of marauders. If the PvE pilots, such as yourself, want a dedicated PvE hull then you're more than welcome to it. Though obviously I'm out of touch with the needs of PvE. That being said...
Cade Windstalker wrote:No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull.
I'll take you up on this challenge. I'll even go one step further and include the Armageddon and Scorpion hulls as well. The Scorpion I know will take longer to complete missions simply because of its lackluster DPS. The Armageddon on the other hand shouldn't have any issues.
Due to time constraints, the videos won't arrive quickly to your inbox. However, if you think any hulls in particular are going to be more likely to fail than others just send me a message and I can do those first.
Care to make a wager out of this? :) |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4611
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 16:51:00 -
[3593] - Quote
Wolfgang Achari wrote:I've gone ahead and checked out of this discussion, because honestly at this point I'm not seeing the point in increasing the PvP viability of marauders. If the PvE pilots, such as yourself, want a dedicated PvE hull then you're more than welcome to it. Though obviously I'm out of touch with the needs of PvE. That being said... Cade Windstalker wrote:No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull. I'll take you up on this challenge. I'll even go one step further and include the Armageddon and Scorpion hulls as well. The Scorpion I know will take longer to complete missions simply because of its lackluster DPS. The Armageddon on the other hand shouldn't have any issues. Due to time constraints, the videos won't arrive quickly to your inbox. However, if you think any hulls in particular are going to be more likely to fail than others just send me a message and I can do those first. Care to make a wager out of this? :) I always enjoy it when someone effectively says "put your money where your mouth is", and the other person responds with "not a problem". To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:09:00 -
[3594] - Quote
Wolfgang Achari wrote:I've gone ahead and checked out of this discussion, because honestly at this point I'm not seeing the point in increasing the PvP viability of marauders. If the PvE pilots, such as yourself, want a dedicated PvE hull then you're more than welcome to it. Though obviously I'm out of touch with the needs of PvE. That being said... Cade Windstalker wrote:No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull. I'll take you up on this challenge. I'll even go one step further and include the Armageddon and Scorpion hulls as well. The Scorpion I know will take longer to complete missions simply because of its lackluster DPS. The Armageddon on the other hand shouldn't have any issues. Due to time constraints, the videos won't arrive quickly to your inbox. However, if you think any hulls in particular are going to be more likely to fail than others just send me a message and I can do those first. Care to make a wager out of this? :)
what are reasonable completion times? also what skill level are you testing at? What kinds of fits are allowed? (if for the purposes of testing i happen to use an officer mod would that be cheating? Faction ? Meta 4?
My guess is roughly half the Battleships will have to warp out in at least one of the missions, and there will be maybe three battleships that can be considered "effective" for a wide variety of missions.
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
452
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:10:00 -
[3595] - Quote
Checking in awaiting CCP's newest update. Eager to see their new ideas :) |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:52:00 -
[3596] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Wolfgang Achari wrote:I've gone ahead and checked out of this discussion, because honestly at this point I'm not seeing the point in increasing the PvP viability of marauders. If the PvE pilots, such as yourself, want a dedicated PvE hull then you're more than welcome to it. Though obviously I'm out of touch with the needs of PvE. That being said... Cade Windstalker wrote:No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull. I'll take you up on this challenge. I'll even go one step further and include the Armageddon and Scorpion hulls as well. The Scorpion I know will take longer to complete missions simply because of its lackluster DPS. The Armageddon on the other hand shouldn't have any issues. Due to time constraints, the videos won't arrive quickly to your inbox. However, if you think any hulls in particular are going to be more likely to fail than others just send me a message and I can do those first. Care to make a wager out of this? :) I always enjoy it when someone effectively says "put your money where your mouth is", and the other person responds with "not a problem". Cade " raise "
Wolfgang instacall's "all in"
Ill put 100 mil in if you do the whole thing with t2 mods and let me Watch them ( its not much I know but I'm saving for a paladin, lol) If in doubt...do...excessively. |
Afru Tolm
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 17:59:00 -
[3597] - Quote
Interesting changes and quite complicated to figure out what each ship will be like once they come in.
Personally I fly a Kronos with remote rep Navy Domi on an alt. - average mission I warp in get aggro on Kronos, then warp in Domi set to assist with drones and RR if needed (this almost never needed) My Kronos is fitted with tractors while Domi salvages.
I dont really like the idea of jumping all over the place in 100km bursts...the MJD is not really useful in 90% of missions and im not sure what use this would have in pvp either....perhaps this module needs the jump distance to be adjustable, but it would be awkward and why not just give the ship a simply velocity boost....seems like CCP are trying to force this absurd module on people.
The Bastion module (and pending hull transformations) sounds good to me as long as the marauders keep a decent web and rep bonus outside of the module being active. The ewar resistance will help with a few of the level 4 missions where ewar can completely overwhelm one ship. I have also seen a lot of people saying they dont use a web....this is one of the most helpful things on a maurader, it lets you kill anything bigger than a frigate with long range weapons no matter how close while letting your light drones kill everything frigate sized (this also makes the 50m3 drone bay very workable)
One thing I can see happening is newer players getting overwhelmed in a mission, going into bastion mode and being stuck in place and loosing their ship. If mauraders could even RR each other this would be much better for helping new players (i think i read this suggestion somewhere)
another option would be to make them only a percentage immune to ewar or if each marauder is immune to its own races ewar (so it can mission effectively in the correct space) or perhaps a choice of scripts, which once loaded into the bastion module which makes you immune to only one/two type(s) of ewar for 60 seconds while the module runs. this way RR can be allowed (if only a %age of normal effectiveness) and the opposing fleet would need to dynamically change ewar types - this could make for some interesting pvp and still allow pve immunity.
At current the ship feels rushed with the price tag, insurance and remote rep situation making it largely useless for pvp and incursions.
However you look at it, it needs work (as you can tell from the number of posts)
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
1820
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 18:41:00 -
[3598] - Quote
Ideally, the Bastion + MJD should allow the Marauder class to fit two roles in PvE:
- medium to high passive tanking, high mobility and increased range (standard mode) - medium to high active tanking, null mobility and increased DPS (bastion mode)
As damage is already bonused, the logical bonus should be to damage application & should be a bastion bonus (not a module based bonus).
That's what I wish to get from the ISK+SP invested in what now are not-so-useful expensive toys.
As for PvP... that's not their primary use ATM, neither I am sure they could have a role with their price + SP requirements. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
vil3
Broham and Associates GmbH
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 18:56:00 -
[3599] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Wolfgang Achari wrote:I've gone ahead and checked out of this discussion, because honestly at this point I'm not seeing the point in increasing the PvP viability of marauders. If the PvE pilots, such as yourself, want a dedicated PvE hull then you're more than welcome to it. Though obviously I'm out of touch with the needs of PvE. That being said... Cade Windstalker wrote:No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull. I'll take you up on this challenge. I'll even go one step further and include the Armageddon and Scorpion hulls as well. The Scorpion I know will take longer to complete missions simply because of its lackluster DPS. The Armageddon on the other hand shouldn't have any issues. Due to time constraints, the videos won't arrive quickly to your inbox. However, if you think any hulls in particular are going to be more likely to fail than others just send me a message and I can do those first. Care to make a wager out of this? :) I always enjoy it when someone effectively says "put your money where your mouth is", and the other person responds with "not a problem". Cade " raise " Wolfgang instacall's "all in" Ill put 200 mil in if you do the whole thing with t2 mods and let me Watch them ( its not much I know but I'm saving for a paladin, lol)
200M from me aswell though id ask you maby announce the times and do a twitch cast of it |
Wolfgang Achari
Morior Invictus. The Retirement Club
8
|
Posted - 2013.09.11 19:08:00 -
[3600] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Wolfgang Achari wrote:I've gone ahead and checked out of this discussion, because honestly at this point I'm not seeing the point in increasing the PvP viability of marauders. If the PvE pilots, such as yourself, want a dedicated PvE hull then you're more than welcome to it. Though obviously I'm out of touch with the needs of PvE. That being said... Cade Windstalker wrote:No, no they can't. I invite you to attempt this for, say, 10 missions per hull with every T1 Battleship hull (excluding the Scorpion and Armageddon since they're obvious non-contenders here due to their specialized bonsues). Please film the results for Youtube and see how you do, I'm betting most hulls have to warp out at least once and all of them fail to live up to any expectation of "reasonable completion time", especially when compared to a T2 or Pirate Battleship hull. I'll take you up on this challenge. I'll even go one step further and include the Armageddon and Scorpion hulls as well. The Scorpion I know will take longer to complete missions simply because of its lackluster DPS. The Armageddon on the other hand shouldn't have any issues. Due to time constraints, the videos won't arrive quickly to your inbox. However, if you think any hulls in particular are going to be more likely to fail than others just send me a message and I can do those first. Care to make a wager out of this? :) what are reasonable completion times? also what skill level are you testing at? What kinds of fits are allowed? (if for the purposes of testing i happen to use an officer mod would that be cheating? Faction ? Meta 4? My guess is roughly half the Battleships will have to warp out in at least one of the missions, and there will be maybe three battleships that can be considered "effective" for a wide variety of missions.
Good question. If someone has a database of completion times that we can use as a standard, that would be swell. Otherwise I'll see what I can do to get some quick averages. I will probably do a few trial runs to get an idea of how much time I'm going to need as I'm going to try and do the missions back to back. I will be skipping courier missions.
This toon has 100m+ SP, not all related skills are at V but a good chunk of them are.
I am going to make it a bit more challenging and limit the fits to T1/T2/Meta modules. Faction charges, implants, nanite repair paste, and combat boosters* are fair game. I won't be using off-grid boosts, fleet window will be visible as proof.
I'll also be using out of game tools to appropriately prepare for and run the missions just as anyone else can. No mission will be blitzed and I'll make a reasonable effort to obtain keys for bonus rooms. I have no idea what my standings are, but I'm going to try to run the missions in the appropriate faction space for the ship.
Since warping out will count as a failure for the ship, I will not be warping out.
I'm interpreting "Most of the ships" as any amount greater than 50%. So to complete the challenge, I will need to successfully run 10 missions without warping out a single time in at least seven of the twelve T1 hulls. Once I have a metric for reasonable completion times, I will be able to compare those as well to determine if I successfully completed that portion of the challenge.
Did I miss anything?
With some luck I won't be kicked from my corp for doing this.
*I can use combat boosters at any time. If I have not yet requested the first mission out of the ten, I can consume boosters until I get favorable results. If I wait for a combat booster to expire after requesting the first mission, the wait time will be added to the mission time clock. This applies as well if I can't do the missions back to back. For example, if I stop after the fourth mission, I can't consume boosters until I get favorable results before requesting/starting the fifth.
*Edit* Alliance/Corp ops will take precedence over this challenge. So if a ping goes out and I need to abandon a mission, I will restart the mission after DT has passed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 263 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |