| Pages: [1] 2 |
1. Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Mag's wrote: Well it seems multiple quotes and spelling is definitely too tough for yours. Go figure. Well actually it said "There are too many quotes in the post" so i had to delete few quotes from there. And yes that is too hard for me. ...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.05.05 16:04:54
|
2. Living in nullsec - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Maksim Cammeren wrote: Arronicus wrote: Highsec incursions in decent groups like ISN can pull 100m/hour reliably, with lower risk than similarly paying nullsec activities. As a very long time nullsec resident, the income is nowhere remotel...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.05.02 16:05:48
|
3. Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Teckos Pech wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: So you blaming me about what you did yourself? You quoted the post and edited my text so i couldnt see what i had posted so i had to actually find the original post you had quoted. And yea i havent actu...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.04.29 20:15:03
|
4. Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Daichi Yamato wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: [quote=Daichi Yamato] If you dont know how cynos work in wh's maybe you should go try light one yourself. Nice trolling attempt anyways to pick one word from my post that had...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.04.29 13:55:26
|
5. Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Daichi Yamato wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: stuffs Some ******** trolling about cynos. .[/quote] If you dont know how cynos work in wh's maybe you should go try light one yourself. Nice trolling attempt any...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.04.26 01:11:44
|
6. Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Ssoraszh Tzarszh wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because every...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.04.25 03:28:35
|
7. Sticky:Dev blog: Politics by Other Means: Sovereignty Phase Two - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Lugburz wrote: listen, if you nullbears dont want to defend your space; if you want it to be 'safe', gtfo and go back to highsec where you really belong. it really is that simple. have a nice day. Your such a smart little troll. But tell me...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.04.23 18:52:52
|
8. Sticky:AFK CloakingGäó: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
baltec1 wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: And no, once again if local wasn't there, there wouldn't be ships to harass. You'd be here crying about how there are no targets for you to shoot because everyone's playing elsewhere. WH clearly show this...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.31 11:12:26
|
9. Removal of Local Chat - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
bonkerss wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: Gimme Sake wrote: How many of you wait (with excitement) for such an announcement from CCP in a near future? I sure do, it is one things I found totally out of place in a space game. Also, how many o...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.26 14:58:32
|
10. Removal of Local Chat - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Sean Parisi wrote: Further point. Local in FW is almost a necessity. Even with d-scan and everything else. It helps to pair equal fleets and allow for quick combat. However, delayed local on null is good. Why? Nullbears and bots need to die. Th...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.26 01:47:20
|
11. Removal of Local Chat - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Gimme Sake wrote: How many of you wait (with excitement) for such an announcement from CCP in a near future? I sure do, it is one things I found totally out of place in a space game. Also, how many of you would loathe/fear not being able t...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.26 00:52:00
|
12. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
baltec1 wrote: I have never seen a 150 man mach fleet. You do not alpha a tengu fleet in anything short of a full sentry carrier fleet due to the tiny sig, speed and massive tank on the tengu all while being cap stable. Well i have seen 150...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.02 09:42:00
|
13. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sniper Smith wrote: The fact that you need to compare a T3 to Pirate BS's tells you just how broken they are. Might want to remember, T3's are not supposed to be better than their T2 Counterparts, they are supposed to be more versatile. Curren...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.02 09:35:49
|
14. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Tineoidea Asanari wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: You say they outclass every other ships with their price tag. These ships are pirate BS's like mach or rattle. Arty mach will outrange and out dps loki for example. Even arty TFI can outrange and ou...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 18:50:39
|
15. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
afkalt wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: T3's are very easy to alpha off field with lets say for example 150 arty machs at +100k. Bogdo Lama wrote: very easy to alpha off field Bogdo Lama wrote: 150 arty machs I feel you might want t...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 18:25:12
|
16. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Tineoidea Asanari wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: You keep talking about T3's as if they were just "some stupid super T2 cruisers that arent needed in this game". I cant understand this kinda mentality. I read your post but i cant still understand ...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 16:52:00
|
17. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Caleb Seremshur wrote: Bogdo Lama wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: [--- None of this makes the battleship class more viable. This change only achieves dragging T3's down a bit which while a bit sad to see is necessary. I tested out my ten...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 15:58:23
|
18. Sticky:[Scylla] Ishtars - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
baltec1 wrote: Would rather have seen the ishtar lose the sentries entirely. Imo ishtar always had too big drone bay for that hull size. Id make it bandwith 100m3 and 125m3 bay. So would be only 4 sentry and no spare sets.
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 11:16:11
|
19. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
James Zimmer wrote: First, I'm glad Strategic Cruisers are getting nerfed. When the standard response to a Proteus being in the fight is "just dock up", because there is no good counter other than a blob or more T3s, the ship class is OP. That...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 10:35:22
|
20. Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Caleb Seremshur wrote: Spencer Owl wrote: Saw this from a mile away. While I love my T3s, this is necessary to make battleships viable. The gap between T2 cruiser and T3 cruiser is way to big. I shouldn't be able to fly a cruiser around with...
- by Bogdo Lama - at 2015.03.01 06:26:03
|
| Pages: [1] 2 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |