Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 [50] 60 70 80 90 100 |
981. Countering Bumping ganks in highsec - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Black Pedro wrote: Sorry, why would you want to do this? Yes, CCP can trivially change the stats of freighters to make them immune to bumping, but how does that make the game better? This is not a comment on the state of ganking, it is only...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.16 14:59:56
|
982. Re-vitalize wardecs by changing dec costs and utilizing the corporat... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
ChinDownEyesUp Arkaral wrote: the hub camping dock game playing mercs make up a significant portion of the highsec merc community for sure, but they are not the entirety. for every marmite there are 2, although smaller, hunting focused groups w...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.15 14:55:58
|
983. Slight rebalance of mining barges - ?reduce AFK mining - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Xe'Cara'eos wrote: off topic post is about off topic post - please redirect discussion of mining minigame to a different thread. You started a topic on mining, another person interjected the idea of a mining mini-game making my response to th...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.15 03:27:05
|
984. Raise the minimum bounty. - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Removed
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.14 14:34:43
|
985. Slight rebalance of mining barges - ?reduce AFK mining - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Xe'Cara'eos wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Faxat wrote: Not the worst idea, currently the biggest "balance" to the retriever vs procurer is a catalyst. One thing though - don't assume that miners all go afk while mining, while it certainly hap...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.14 14:16:30
|
986. Does CCP even look at our ideas? - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Serendipity Lost wrote: They do look at it. A lot of discussion has moved to reddit because they can have a different style of discussion over there. Discussion here is looked at. Now would be a great time for a random dev to chime in w/ a "He...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.13 15:11:20
|
987. New Probe type warp beacon - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
New probe not needed so -1. Fleet warp accomplishes this vey nicely. Don't want your scan ship in the warp they can simply stop thier ship after activating the fleet warp. A counter would be an easier way to share bookmarks within a fleet.
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.13 15:04:51
|
988. Slight rebalance of mining barges - ?reduce AFK mining - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Faxat wrote: Not the worst idea, currently the biggest "balance" to the retriever vs procurer is a catalyst. One thing though - don't assume that miners all go afk while mining, while it certainly happens, it feels like ehat people rather do i...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.13 14:57:10
|
989. Suggestion - Cyno Disruptor Module - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
-1 Because there is a way in game right now to do what you want we do not need another. -1 Because friends are a thing in this game and you do not get to have a module that eliminates someone else's friends from the equation. -1 Because being ju...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.13 14:32:25
|
990. gauntlets for faction standings fix. - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Joe Risalo wrote: I suggest they also have the added limitation of not being doable if your standing is above -2. This is to keep people from grinding them out to boost faction standing in easy mode. Once you hit -1.99, you can no longer run t...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.12 14:30:19
|
991. [C4] Frontier Barracks - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Having them spawn at 100K seems to be the perfect application for one of these. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Micro_Jump_Drive Or the bookmark warp out / warp back in at range if there are no accel gates to deal with. In some missions at all ...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.12 14:11:11
|
992. Simple fix to balance lvl 4 missions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
If burners are the real problem then the only change needed is to move burners to low / nul sec where the inherent risks are more inline with the rewards why screw around with the rest of the system.
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.12 13:50:40
|
993. Simple fix to balance lvl 4 missions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
The problem with your timer change is it punishes ALL mission runners and not just the blitzers you are complaining about. I would counter your timer change proposal with this. Move all of the ISK from pay and bonuses to bounties for ships killed...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.12 05:32:35
|
994. Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Vic Jefferson wrote: Cyno means the carrier is not solo for long. Cynos are the fastest response in the game, even faster than warping within system. Solo ratting carriers are easy targets. There will be 20 or more carriers on grid within 10s. ...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.12 05:07:42
|
995. Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
baltec1 wrote: Donnachadh wrote: -1 because it seems like you have no idea what you want. The title says that you want to make nul and low sec anoms even safer by making them cyno free areas, and yet you launch into a soap box speech about ...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.12 04:43:41
|
996. Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Vic Jefferson wrote: I think you are a little ignorant on how vulnerable ratting carriers are by themselves, or how few blops/bombers it takes to knock one out if support does not come. I don't have an issue if defenders are in system and come ...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.11 15:18:35
|
997. Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Vic Jefferson wrote: You can't be serious? It actually would let smaller groups do something about ratting capitals. As it stands, every carrier within a 5 ly radius of one you tackle can instantly respond; this is much faster than if they had...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.10 14:54:02
|
998. Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Vic Jefferson wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: So...still no, as I don't think Vic or anybody else should have their play style buffed without a whole heck of a lot more explanation. Explanation is in the original post, but not fully expanded a...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.09 14:22:29
|
999. Ship Motion - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Always Shi wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Since many of these are already in game what is your feature, idea or suggestion to modify the existing? Add TWO MASSIVE DOORS to every ship? Not a bad idea, a new mining ship I think. Fly up to an as...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.08 23:17:35
|
1000. Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
-1 because it seems like you have no idea what you want. The title says that you want to make nul and low sec anoms even safer by making them cyno free areas, and yet you launch into a soap box speech about how nul sec is to safe and it is to har...
- by Donnachadh - at 2015.11.08 23:00:52
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 [50] 60 70 80 90 100 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |