Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 18:56:00 -
[391] - Quote
Reworking Incursion constellations to be made up of mixed Sec status system may be interesting new facet: include a randomization where a single Vanguard, assault or HQ system is lo sec with appropriate payout. Occasionally a mixed HI SEC incursion won't finish until the adjacet lo sec MOM is killed off (I hope with the greater chance of a revenant BPC dropping :). This will throw a wrench into the current incursion chats' farming agreements unless they join together to do lo sec mixed incursion MOMs ALSO MIXED SEC STATUS SYSTEMS SHOULD BE MORE RANDOM SO NOT TOO MANY AMARR INCURSIONS ALWAYS SPAWN!!! |
Endeavour Starfleet
639
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:39:00 -
[392] - Quote
Ok lets get this clear.
Making any changes to sec status within a hisec incursion will mean said system simply WONT be used. You drooling for high priced targets will just ruin your keyboard and wont result in anything meaningful.
Instead of trying to harm incursion runners yet again the encouragement needs to be on more assault and HQ fleets.
-Force complete vanguards - Increase Payout for assaults and HQs
Simple and done.
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
217
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 04:44:00 -
[393] - Quote
Mussaschi wrote:
Higher drake prices have nothing to do with higher trit prices (since you do not need any trit for it).
Wait, what??!!
Not sure if serious/troll?
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM 7! (Mittens, you may not want to admit it, but your day in the sun is over. Next!)
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition
217
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 04:46:00 -
[394] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Ok lets get this clear.
Making any changes to sec status within a hisec incursion will mean said system simply WONT be used. You drooling for high priced targets will just ruin your keyboard and wont result in anything meaningful.
Instead of trying to harm incursion runners yet again the encouragement needs to be on more assault and HQ fleets.
-Force complete vanguards - Increase Payout for assaults and HQs
Simple and done.
No, it would mean that people would actually have to ship down to non-shiny/non-pimped, which potentially opens up newer/less well-off pilots into getting into your elitist fuckbag club, and, heaven forbid, generate "potential PvP situational-awareness" among newer players, sooner.
Can't have that, now can we.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM 7! (Mittens, you may not want to admit it, but your day in the sun is over. Next!)
|
Endeavour Starfleet
639
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 06:19:00 -
[395] - Quote
You think said noobs are going to go in there for long? It will be a gankfest just like lowsec is today.
Just Alpha kill the logis.. Done good night fleet.
It's a silly idea.
As for l33t. Ever go on a HQ fleet. They take virtually everyone and ive seen some REAL crap skills and fits be accepted with open arms. Vanguards need to be force complete to drive some out and HQs and Assaults given more payout for more fleets. But otherwise "I never get in!" in a myth. You can be in a raven that gets in faster than you can get said raven for LVL4s |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
816
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 11:35:00 -
[396] - Quote
Quote:Endeavour's logic:
Fleet A = Lvl V skilled, officer fit faction ships Fleet B = Lesser skilled T1 ships with t2 fittings
Force both fleets while in competition to kill ALL Sansha on grid. This will for sure give Fleet B a larger chance at winning the site (lol wut!?)
You're such a clever little boy. quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
KanashiiKami
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:12:00 -
[397] - Quote
ShipToaster wrote:KanashiiKami wrote:ShipToaster wrote:This proposed change to wardecs by Kelduum Revaan of eve university, potential CSM member, will have an extreme effect on incursions. You might want to put some feedback on that thread as it will end incursions if it is enacted and as we all know :ccp: have a bit of a hard on for stupid changes in recent months so it could be. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67445 would you / anyone care to elaborate ... im kinda slow at seeing the link ... i mean how SNA relates to incursion going bad and BTW i read that ... and yes its just BS idea ... im glad i didnt join eve uni and have him for CEO No war declaration is needed for you to become a target. All that is needed is for you to be close to one of these null sec creating structures. This makes a lot of new problems for incursions. You can be fleet warped into one of these or you can be asked to warp to someone, either way right smack into a null sec area where you can be killed with impunity. Anchoring these null sec creating structures near gates or stations then bumping ships into them will be a problem for some ships, deploying them around any static ship that is afk for easy kills, deploying one in the mom site (then hiding a dozen stealth bombers to create mass carnage or warping in an even bigger PvP equipped fleet for the kills and the mom). As it is an area classed as null sec space, even if it is in highsec, you can deploy bubbles and use dictors, with all the problems that would entail for point to point travel, and use bombs also which will be a problem for tightly grouped ships using the gate to warp in. This list is what I thought of in a few minutes but I am sure the truly creative can think of all sorts of extra hazards that you will learn the hard way and wont be prepared for.
ahhh soudesuka ... WUT ??? |
KanashiiKami
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:20:00 -
[398] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:my ideas 1) rework sizes for max number of pilots in a fleet VG - 8 AS - 14 HQ - 28 MOM- 50 why? smaller fleet sizes = faster fleet forming, improves the waiting time to play time. subscribers like more play time and not wait time. however this will increase the difficulty of a site run. 2) contesting site isk/LP should be shared according to total damage % dealt into site. this will help lower skilled fleets to enjoy the game instead of being constantly run over by fleets oversized with highly skilled DPS. is this a nerf to elite fleets? i do not see it that way, on the other hand, by doing so, a fleet will know how much more/less dps they did in a contest. will this introduce more poorly skilled players into incursions? fact--> we are all poorly skilled once, it is up to the FC to select and form his fleet and sort out who he should have on his team. if he chooses a lesser skilled to run with, the fleet will have to live with it or hop to other fleets. fact --> with a smaller fleet size due to point 1, i do not think any FC will wish to try his luck. 3) with down sizing of fleet size, total sansha DPS output dealt to playerbase should decrease accordingly to ensure playability of sites VG - -20% sansha total dps AS - -20% sansha total dps HQ - -30% sansha total dps MOM- -30% sansha total dps this would seem like a nerf BUT ... read on ... 4) with reduced DPS, ALL sites should introduce an extra special spawn that must be destroyed for site completion. new spawn introduced i will suggest be triggered after 2nd last site trigger is in effect. the spawn will consist of 1xsmartbomb armed sansha cruiser (SB strength = 2.5x of a T2 medium SB @ 25km radius effect going at a 8 second interval), 1xsensordampener armed frig, that can target 2 simultaneous targets to cause 500% t2 scripted sensor dampening effect @ 12s interval range of 50km, 1xremoteshieldrep armed cruiser that will effect 500% remote rep capabilities of a med T2 remote shield rep on 1 target @ 10s interval. this spawn is a unique grp and will move in a formation no further than 5km from each other. this spawn will have the following spawn grps per sites: VG - 1 spawn AS - 2 spawns HQ - 3 spawns MOM- 4 spawns yes the repping capability might prove to be a challenge for beyond VG sites, and it is this therefore that will "prove" as a checking "trigger" of the minimum amount of dps a fleet should have and therefore the rep % should be tweaked according to real fleets nominal dps, the 500% i have suggested is an arbituary value it could be 1000% or 200% for all i know. 5) most of the above seem like more of a debuff to sansha spawns, therefore i will like to suggest all sansha spawns recieve their own combat booster/buffing BS hulled ship (non attacking entity) that will do the following non stacking bonuses: VG - +150% shield HP AS - +60% shield HP HQ - +50% shield HP MOM- +40% shield HP this combat booster ship should be rendered invulnerable with shield resistances of 99%. and EHP +500% of normal sansha spawn. it may be plausible that this unit will become prime target in mom/HQ fleets. with the increased HP, the role of the sansha remote repping ships should now be nerfed to only rep @ 20% capacity. 6) with the increased overall EHP of sansha + extra spawn. it is only natural that the site will now take MORE time to complete than usual. and therefore it is only logical that bounties of ISK/LP increase, and by that i would mean a total increase of 70% of bounties across VG, 100% for AS sites and a 150% increase for HQ site and 200% increase for MOM site. MOM site no longer drops loot. but all MOM site pilot now recieve a tradable special insignia token that can be exchanged for special concord named items (that could be the random loot from the SC + some insane amt of LP?). 7) reconfiguration of a incursion cluster each incursion spawn should now be as follows VG - 99 sites (spread over 11 to 15 systems) AS - 15 sites (spread over 5 systems) HQ - 9 sites (spread over 3 systems) MOM- 4 sites (spread over 2 systems) and there is now only 1 hisec site, 1 losec, 1 nullsec. and each site can spawn over 3 adjoining constellations instead of 1. 50% of all initial spawned VG must be destoyed at least once to spawn AS sites, or wait 5days for AS auto spawn 100% of all initial spawned AS must be destoyed at least once to spawn HQ sites, or wait 7 days for HQ auto spawn 100% of all initial spawned HQ must be destoyed at least once to spawn MOM sites, or wait 9 days for MOM auto spawn. when MOM sites spawn, constellation wide all stargate, stations and VG/AS/HQ site-warpgates will be harrassed by a splash of 5-10 orkashu myelens, they do nothing but harrass with ecm. server restarts will spawn the rats if they are destroyed. all 4 MOM sites must be destroyed to end the incursion and trigger LP payout. and MOM sites withdrawal time is set to countdown in 9 days. which means an entire incursion spawn will last maximum 18 full days with the reduced fleet sized groupings, it is hoped to encourage more pilots to try AS/HQ sites. with the increased number of pilots going into incursions, it is only logical that sansha now sends in more troops to occupy "our" space. the above changes is hoped to encourage, a more focused fleet activity rather than just bulldozing thru sites. overall i would say difficulty of sites is increased. while survivability of sites is also up. thank you for reading
so .... nobody have any comments to this? ... FCs? plz ? plz? lol WUT ??? |
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1565
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:44:00 -
[399] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:ShipToaster wrote:*stuff* ahhh soudesuka ... What he failed to mention is that you have to be a significant distance from anything (including mission stuff, gates, stations etc) to be able to even anchor it, as well as that it's a proposal, nothing more, and about as likely to appear in-game without changes as any of the other suggestions there, such as the typical 'remove hisec' ones. Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University
Candidate,-áCSM7 |
Roxwar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:55:00 -
[400] - Quote
I suggest a change to the LP rewards.
Right now, regardless of system, you get concord LP. Thousands of players daily gaining obscene amounts has and will continue to devalue concord LP.
Solution? Make the LP reward random.
If your incursioning in Gallente space, you get LP randomly from one of the Gallente factions. Same thing for all the other 3 respective races and their space.
At least that way it halts the thinning out of concord LP value and encourages interest in other LP stores.
If this was implemented though, the various LP stores need a good updating to make them more attractive than what they are now. http://roxwar.blogspot.com/ |
|
StuRyan
Assisted Homicide Ace of Spades.
42
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:23:00 -
[401] - Quote
leave them Eve is not meant to be fair and when opporunities arise for people to work togther and take advantage of the mechanics that is what eve is about.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
640
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 18:32:00 -
[402] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Quote:Endeavour's logic:
Fleet A = Lvl V skilled, officer fit faction ships Fleet B = Lesser skilled T1 ships with t2 fittings
Force both fleets while in competition to kill ALL Sansha on grid. This will for sure give Fleet B a larger chance at winning the site (lol wut!?) You're such a clever little boy.
First of all traitor. Using the quote system like that is defamation.
2nd. The force complete is to remove some of the advantage the shiny fleets have. And also lower isk/hr of them enough so that more will go into the then upgraded Assaults and HQ fleets.
Leaving the Vangaurds for smaller fleets that aren't ready for the higher sites just yet.
And if that isnt enough you can add in a few extra spawns on the VGs. Point is nuking them with payout cuts is NOT the answer.
Roxwar wrote:I suggest a change to the LP rewards.
Right now, regardless of system, you get concord LP. Thousands of players daily gaining obscene amounts has and will continue to devalue concord LP.
Solution? Make the LP reward random.
If your incursioning in Gallente space, you get LP randomly from one of the Gallente factions. Same thing for all the other 3 respective races and their space.
At least that way it halts the thinning out of concord LP value and encourages interest in other LP stores.
If this was implemented though, the various LP stores need a good updating to make them more attractive than what they are now.
The issue with this idea is that it would cause the value of LP from the mission runners to plummet even more. CONCORD LP value does kind of suck right now. Yet that means more will use it for its intended purpose which is rewarding the pilots with stuff the pilots will actually use. |
El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:37:00 -
[403] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Ok lets get this clear.
Making any changes to sec status within a hisec incursion will mean said system simply WONT be used. You drooling for high priced targets will just ruin your keyboard and wont result in anything meaningful.
Instead of trying to harm incursion runners yet again the encouragement needs to be on more assault and HQ fleets.
-Force complete vanguards - Increase Payout for assaults and HQs
Simple and done.
currently incursions only spawn in either a highsec/lowsec or nullsec constellation, they dont spawn in mixed constellations - its not about "shiny targets", nor is it about "nuking incursions from orbit", just a simple incursions spawn anywhere rather than sticking to non-mixed constellations making it much more open for everyone involved as it would spread incursions more accross diferent factions space, the highsec runners would still have the CHOICE to stay in highsec and run THE SAME sites they already run but the more risk orientated might decide they want their fleet to run vanguards in the one lowsec system becuase no one else is (among more oppertunities for everyone) - what are you soo scared of?
your whole thing seems to be "QQ NOOOO, DO NOTHING TO INCURSIONS BUT MAKE THEM EASIER AND PAY MORE!!!" |
Endeavour Starfleet
640
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 01:47:00 -
[404] - Quote
I can now see where you are going with that. Yet I still think its rather useless as the lows and nulls arent really being run much anyway.
And a hotdrop will still reduce your incursion fleet to rubble in no time flat. |
El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 07:37:00 -
[405] - Quote
cant hotdrop into incursion areas |
Endeavour Starfleet
640
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 07:55:00 -
[406] - Quote
El Geo wrote:cant hotdrop into incursion areas
Never post while tired Ill concede that point
Still think they won't get used much. |
El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 08:31:00 -
[407] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:El Geo wrote:cant hotdrop into incursion areas Never post while tired Ill concede that point Still think they won't get used much.
aye, no doubt but then who can complain about it being unfair when theres incursion systems not being ran and no 'shiny' targets in lowsec , not like the 'choice' would'nt be there
a good (armor) incursion gang can be fit for pvp and would provide more than just some shiny targets, an experienced pvp gang running incursions would be more than most 'pirates' could handle, especially when going up in numbers as they do for assualts and hq's |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
819
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 16:55:00 -
[408] - Quote
So Endeavour where lies in the difference between reducing reward payouts in vanguards vs. making vanguard sites take longer so the payout is reduced?
In order to "lower Isk/hour so enough _shiny_ people go do assault and HQ's" would mean vanguards with an almost perfect fleet should make no more than 60 m/hour. This would mean that either:
1. Vanguard payouts are reduced by a factor of just below 3. 2. Vanguard sites are prolonged by a factor of just below 3.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Endeavour Starfleet
641
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 20:08:00 -
[409] - Quote
Time between sites Traitor.
Between sites there is almost always downtime. Its better to have a few more spawns (Facor of 3 wut?) than reduce payout.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
641
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 20:13:00 -
[410] - Quote
El Geo wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:El Geo wrote:cant hotdrop into incursion areas Never post while tired Ill concede that point Still think they won't get used much. aye, no doubt but then who can complain about it being unfair when theres incursion systems not being ran and no 'shiny' targets in lowsec , not like the 'choice' would'nt be there a good (armor) incursion gang can be fit for pvp and would provide more than just some shiny targets, an experienced pvp gang running incursions would be more than most 'pirates' could handle, especially when going up in numbers as they do for assualts and hq's
Armor rarely can get the numbers to run those sites with current systems much less getting them to go into nullsec. Vanguards. Maybe but Assaults and HQs are more community missioning than serious money making. (Many of those runners will refuse to go into VG fleets even tho they have shiny ships that will make more isk/hr)
At most they should be assaults and VGs. The HQ should stay in hisec so the good community fleets don't get changed. |
|
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
820
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 21:21:00 -
[411] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Time between sites Traitor.
Between sites there is almost always downtime. Its better to have a few more spawns (Facor of 3 wut?) than reduce payout.
Implying an almost perfect fleet setup in very good condition equal 14-15 sites an hour at about 150 m an hour. You implying headquarters and assaults being more rewarding than vanguards -> vanguard should not payout more than 60 m.
150 vs. 60, almost a factor of 3.
This with an almost perfect fleet setup. T1 fleets will linger at about 30-40 m an hour for vanguards. Way to go Endeavour, "nuke incursions from orbit" I believe you call it? quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Endeavour Starfleet
641
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 00:11:00 -
[412] - Quote
#1 150M an hour is bogus. Rare at best
#2 I want Assaults and Hqs buffed in payout. To help draw in more vangaurd runners. That stops the 3x right there.
#3 Vanguards are their own style and I dont want them nuked. Just reduced in sheer draw. The downtime and other factors affecting other sites should not affect Vanguard payout. A force complete on VG sites and a few extra spawns (Maybe bigger ones so its not insta 6x web and point and poof) will help draw a few out but 3x reduction is just silly. Especially with its the other sites that need buffing.
#4 You are still a traitor and you still can't explain why you ran fake logis to gank fleets with your so called shut down incursion operation to get attention betrayal. |
El Geo
Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:07:00 -
[413] - Quote
sometimes i wonder why there are no minions, loyals and true sansha's in incursions |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
109
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 09:46:00 -
[414] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Additionally, if you have any especially well thought-out feedback about the feature as a whole, and particularly about specific things you feel are wrong with the current implementation, go ahead and share those too!
Specific things that are wrong with Incursions:
* There's no means for players to side with the Sansha.
* High Sec Incursions are just wrong on a number of fundamental levels. - They throw Risk vs Reward balance out the window. - They make no sense in terms of Lore/RP. Why is CONCORD there to protect pod pilots yet unable to repel the Sansha?
Suggestions:
* Either remove Incursions from High Sec or remove CONCORD from High Sec systems for the duration of the Incursion.
* Make player standings effect Pirate NPCs reactions, allowing those with good standings to the Sansha to fight side by side with the NPCs. No artificial rewards are necessary, potential loot from destroyed Pod pilots attempting to defeat the Sansha would be sufficient.
Ideally you would scrap Incursions as they are now altogether, and remake it into something that enhances the story of EVE and fits into a game that is supposedly a player conflict driven Sandbox MMORPG. What you have now belongs in a PvE driven Themepark MMORPG and is inappropriate for a game like EVE. |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
821
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 16:25:00 -
[415] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:#1 150M an hour is bogus. Rare at best
#2 I want Assaults and Hqs buffed in payout. To help draw in more vangaurd runners. That stops the 3x right there.
#3 Vanguards are their own style and I dont want them nuked. Just reduced in sheer draw. The downtime and other factors affecting other sites should not affect Vanguard payout. A force complete on VG sites and a few extra spawns (Maybe bigger ones so its not insta 6x web and point and poof) will help draw a few out but 3x reduction is just silly. Especially with its the other sites that need buffing.
#4 You are still a traitor and you still can't explain why you ran fake logis to gank fleets with your so called shut down incursion operation to get attention betrayal.
Yep, much better. Maybe if you'd like to disclose who your real mains are I could start taking you seriously and not just some obvious alt.
3-4 minute site completion will net you 15 sites an hour. Try do the math and yes I've done it.
We agree then. Buff assault and HQ! quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Endeavour Starfleet
646
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 05:16:00 -
[416] - Quote
I have already said I don't like how a shiny fleet has the extreme advantage. For instance. The webs. Shiny fleets have more and better web ability that gives them an extreme advantage over a nonshiny fleet. Therefore a force complete paired with small changes to the spawn to make the webs and points less important will gut the difference between shiny and nonshiny.
As for alt. Well touche from one alt to another. However nobody can claim I deliberately let a fleet die. |
KanashiiKami
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 07:09:00 -
[417] - Quote
Xorv wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Additionally, if you have any especially well thought-out feedback about the feature as a whole, and particularly about specific things you feel are wrong with the current implementation, go ahead and share those too!
Specific things that are wrong with Incursions:* There's no means for players to side with the Sansha. * High Sec Incursions are just wrong on a number of fundamental levels. - They throw Risk vs Reward balance out the window. - They make no sense in terms of Lore/RP. Why is CONCORD there to protect pod pilots yet unable to repel the Sansha? Suggestions:* Either remove Incursions from High Sec or remove CONCORD from High Sec systems for the duration of the Incursion. * Make player standings effect Pirate NPCs reactions, allowing those with good standings to the Sansha to fight side by side with the NPCs. No artificial rewards are necessary, potential loot from destroyed Pod pilots attempting to defeat the Sansha would be sufficient. Ideally you would scrap Incursions as they are now altogether, and remake it into something that enhances the story of EVE and fits into a game that is supposedly a player conflict driven Sandbox MMORPG. What you have now belongs in a PvE driven Themepark MMORPG and is inappropriate for a game like EVE.
hehe definately the incursion touched a raw nerve in him ....
anyway .... in terms of LORE/RP ... CCP tried live events. but it caused too much random mass destruction. so i think CCP may want to revisit LORE/RP. have sansha and concord engage in battle at warp gates !!!
and regarding reward/risk, i would re-suggest what i have posted, increased difficulty and time to clear any site, and also increase payout correspondingly.
regarding story, i must say nobody is following the story because CCP did NOT weave any evident/memorable storyline gameplay to be an epic part of the game. so ... i dont think CCP is good at that ...
BUT ... to increase storyline identity to players whop feel its importance ... CCP SHOULD change the constellation NEW EDEN into something else that can interweave story lines and EVE myths into. it should prolly become the new jita of EVE ... thats where it all started ... didnt it?
CCP threw all the hard parts to the players to run .... and then tried to POLICE it ... that ... is how it is run now ... LOL WUT ??? |
Carton Mantory
Cult of Baal
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 19:20:00 -
[418] - Quote
To make this a simple response:
No matter what CCP does EVE players will do the most valued isk activity.
if we all go back t o level 5 or level 4 or mining or wormholes or havens or whatever you still not going to be doing PVP with isk valued activities.
The point of isk is to make it not blow it when you want to make it. Stop thinking EVE is fair.
Isk valued activities is what you try and stop no one component will effect any other. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 08:23:00 -
[419] - Quote
Xorv wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Additionally, if you have any especially well thought-out feedback about the feature as a whole, and particularly about specific things you feel are wrong with the current implementation, go ahead and share those too!
Specific things that are wrong with Incursions: [/i]
Risk? you must be anub clinging to the threads of Goons or suckling Darius III ****.
i been running the HQ sites and sad to say there is ALOT of risk. Among the Dead are 3 Onies 4 Guards 2 Vindi 1 Loki before we warped out. Learn before you speak like mitanni |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
402
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 08:51:00 -
[420] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote: Risk? you must be anub clinging to the threads of Goons or suckling Darius III ****.
i been running the HQ sites and sad to say there is ALOT of risk. Among the Dead are 3 Onies 4 Guards 2 Vindi 1 Loki before we warped out. Learn before you speak like mitanni
http://www.fatal-ascension.com/killboard/index.php/kill_related/84786/
You risked nothing of significance. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |