| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 |
1. Proposed Structure Combat Mechanics Revision Suite - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Wallymarts wrote: 3) Im not really sure how this could be carried out. For instance, if i am an EU entity and my prime times are 1600-1900 and that is what my sov is linked to with decent ADM's. I re read your point a couple times but i dont fu...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2017.04.30 20:43:44
|
2. Proposed Structure Combat Mechanics Revision Suite - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Crazy Vania wrote: I agree with 1 and 2. Not sure I understand 3, but you're right in saying time zone tanking needs to be fixed somehow. Number three means that if you reinforce a TCU or Ihub, the structures that are inside of the system (...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2017.04.30 19:24:12
|
3. Proposed Structure Combat Mechanics Revision Suite - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Citadels have been around for a year and they're pretty good, but a few significant issues have made themselves known: The three-timer event mechanics is rather tedious and requires no effort on the part of the structure owner to maintain
S...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2017.04.30 18:25:16
|
4. [119.4] More improvements from Team Five 0 - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: Since each Citadel and Engineering Complex its getting its own icon, how do you guys feel about representative iconography ? Astra and Fort don't look anything like how most players will see t...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2017.03.30 19:07:56
|
5. [119.4] More improvements from Team Five 0 - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Since each Citadel and Engineering Complex its getting its own icon, how do you guys feel about representative iconography ?
- by Evelgrivion - at 2017.03.30 17:54:55
|
6. Visual Damage System 2.0 - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Is there a way to make the glowing, damaged embers in the armor cool off to gray and black over time?
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.07.27 19:50:08
|
7. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
C-137 wrote: Cade Windstalker wrote: Given the current state of the changes I wouldn't worry about Light Fighters being a solo I-Win button. If you get nuked by a single carrier's fighters, in a decently tanked Cruiser, it will be because yo...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.25 03:39:21
|
8. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: I want them to use a half-way version of it because outside of situations where the fighters are moving extremely quickly and obliterating their targets as soon as they get close enough, the balance...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 21:01:29
|
9. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Then you would run into the same problem as if you just gave them 'guns' and made them use that damage formula, where they would need to get increased application to offset Drones (and Fighters) being dumber than a sack ...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 20:14:15
|
10. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
C-137 wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: The chap you're arguing/debating with is scramming the dromis. You seem not to be? This will make a huge difference if that is the case. I cannot target them fast enough on my 2nd account to scram t...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 18:38:02
|
11. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
C-137 wrote: The MWD cooldown is actually quite obnoxious. If you are fighting within 35kms, it is better to recall and relaunch between targets than wait for the MWD, unless you are already near the next target obviously. It seems too much lik...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 17:51:06
|
12. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Evelgrivion wrote: To address this point in particular, the simplest solution off the top of my head is to add a penalty element to the missile application formula based on how fast the fighters and their target are g...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 17:42:56
|
13. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: The problem with making Fighters use turret damage rules is that it makes them close to worthless against anything they can't track with their base speed and very frustrating to use, in the same but less extreme way old ...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 16:53:11
|
14. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: How is this toxic though? The current environment is basically: see Carrier -> Do I feel like losing most/all of my ships today just to fight something? No? Run awaaaayyyyyy!!! It sounds like, in your own words, this...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 03:19:47
|
15. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Morgaine Mighthammer wrote: while i agree that the old fighters would be better than the proposed changes, i still like the idea of making the heavy rocket attack something that you should actually think about when to use; and keeping or incre...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.23 01:00:56
|
16. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Wouldn't it be a more reasonable tweak/nerf to the networked sensor array to give it a weapons timer and criminal flag on activation? Gatecampers would take heat immediately and the citadel tethering shenanigans would be brought to a screeching halt.
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.10 13:35:42
|
17. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Do Force Auxiliaries really need to be even more of an "escalate to capitals or a hundred pilots or GTFO" button than they already are?
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.06.10 12:34:08
|
18. Improving First Impressions by re-centralizing the starter systems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So if they are vacant, then refer back to Iain's comment and if they are not vacant, then what's the point of the thread again? The point is that if the starter systems are actually part of the game, the new characters a...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.04.29 03:54:15
|
19. Improving First Impressions by re-centralizing the starter systems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Iain Cariaba wrote: Pretty sure the point is to get new players out of the starter systems and into actually playing the game. When the rest of the world's traffic is passing through, would you not expect new players to be swept up in the cu...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.04.29 03:41:38
|
20. Improving First Impressions by re-centralizing the starter systems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Today's EVE starter systems are largely vacant places, skipped over by established players who have little reason to go out of their way to visit them. When compared with Kisogo during Eve's time of peak growth, new players start in utterly dead s...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2016.04.29 01:46:19
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |