| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 |
1. Sticky:Dev Blog: Shake my Citadel - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
CCP Ytterbium wrote: (shooting neutrals) We may [...] allow you to do so but have CONCORD show up and destroy your structure if you commit an act of aggression. Wow, that's a huge trolling magnet you're considering there :)
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.05.13 08:08:06
|
2. What happened to the Dominix redesign? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Icebears wrote: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5579822#post5579822 Good catch!
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.04.09 12:58:22
|
3. What happened to the Dominix redesign? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Well, we know it wasn't to happen in Kronos, since that was announced and all. (http://www.evemanufacturing.co.uk/dominix-redesign-not-in-kronos/ , because it that link also features the picture :)) Also because we had almost a year to verify that...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.04.08 13:57:54
|
4. Super Kerr-Induced Nanocoatings (SKINs) - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
CCP FoxFour wrote: Arronicus wrote: CCP FoxFour wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: I'm a bit worried about skin switching being abusable in large fleet fights. Do you yet have numbers on the traffic / processing demands skin switching in spa...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.04.02 16:58:05
|
5. Super Kerr-Induced Nanocoatings (SKINs) - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Are there long term plans to make SKINS independent from specific ships? I.e. let's say you have a Quafe license, so you'd be allowed to fly all your ships in Quafe colors.
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.04.02 12:12:48
|
6. Super Kerr-Induced Nanocoatings (SKINs) - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
I'm a bit worried about skin switching being abusable in large fleet fights. Do you yet have numbers on the traffic / processing demands skin switching in space will generate for clients with ships on grid? If it has the potential to generate not...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.04.02 10:15:27
|
7. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Baaldor wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: Caius Sivaris wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: - only allow initiation of an attack that would lower sec status, IF that sec status can actually be lowered, for example for an attack that would lower...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.30 09:07:36
|
8. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Caius Sivaris wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: - only allow initiation of an attack that would lower sec status, IF that sec status can actually be lowered, for example for an attack that would lower sec status by 0.1, you would have to be at...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.27 18:04:05
|
9. Sticky:[New structures] Mooring and docking features - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Nothing in EVE should ever be 100% safe. I beg to differ. The process of logging out should indeed be 100% safe, as the second you decide to quit playing for that day, you effectively retract ANY agreements regardin...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.27 14:55:57
|
10. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Baaldor wrote: You do realize that whilst under agro (criminal timer) and you log off...you can be probed down and killed...? Right? you knew that.... right? Why would they log off outside of a station?
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 19:54:25
|
11. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Black Pedro wrote: Highsec is already so safe that highsec mining and AFK hauling have some of the most lucrative effort-to-ISK ratios in the game. AFK hauling below a reasonable gank threshold and mining in tanked ships have awful effor...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 13:51:31
|
12. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Baaldor wrote: Ok I have issue with this...please tell me more about the Risk v Reward issue. because if you want balance...we need to add some to the risk averse sheep raking in rewards with very little risk involved. I.E. most of your profes...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 13:29:07
|
13. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Then you don't want to actually hit them back, you want arbitrary, petty restrictions. You want an anti fun mechanic that makes it harder to play the game for the profession that already has more mechanical consequences...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 13:12:56
|
14. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Black Pedro wrote: Your proposal just increases safety for highsec dwellers yet again, which will further exacerbate the risk vs. reward issues already significantly present in highsec. Which risk vs. reward are we talking about here? If ...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 12:59:24
|
15. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: It is already unprofitable to gank them if they tank their ship, provided they don't stuff it with more than twice the value of the ships it would take to gank would cost. It's unreasonable to nerf a gamestyle l...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 12:51:29
|
16. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Black Pedro wrote: [...] lot of math to make sure any given gank is possible/profitable. [...] Why should ANY given gank be profitable? I'm not a hauler, but IMO there should definitely be a (more or less) safe zone for them, where it's un...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 12:18:59
|
17. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
Tipa Riot wrote: Yet another anti-ganker whine thread. Just don't get ganked with expensive stuff - it's not that difficult! I got ganked once with expensive stuff and that was fine. I took a stupid risk, ganker invested a real asset (tor...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 11:14:32
|
18. Giving Security Status a meaning - in EVE General Discussion [original thread]
We had a pretty healthy discussion about security tags/ganking on the german forum lately. Obviously it's hard to find consensus on that topic. :) However, one thing even professional gankers could agree on is that the most dominant problem with ...
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.26 09:33:37
|
19. Sticky:Worlds Collide All Fits - in EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion [original thread]
Joffy Aulx-Gao wrote: Next time can't you upload EFT Pictures instead of this wall of text? You can save fits as a Picture in EFT. You could simply copy those fits into EFT, since they are posted in EFT format?
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.24 19:48:46
|
20. Sticky:Dev blog: Back Into the Structure - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
There seems a bit of a conflict between the - ultimately planned (?) - conversion of outposts into XL structures and the 'freeport' part of the new entosis link mechanism. Is that going to be addressed?
- by Chi'Nane T'Kal - at 2015.03.24 11:24:01
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |