| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 |
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. 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
|
5. 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
|
6. 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
|
7. Free-to-play F2P Scheme - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
For those of us that remember the hullabaloo about free trial miner bots over the damage it was doing to the game economy... take that flood of ore and multiply it by every PVE activity and an endless swarm of low SP tackle alts. That's basically ...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.10.29 06:01:32
|
8. Sovereingty Improvements: Taxes & Contest Methods - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Under the current sovereignty paradigm, there's no reason to own space you don't use, and even less reason to fight over it. Since this has resulted in countless ignored, incomplete contest events, it's clear to me that some iteration and new feat...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.08.13 03:59:56
|
9. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Do systems with lower levels of development really have to exit reinforcement any significant amount of time away from an alliance's designated prime time?
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.08.07 17:33:20
|
10. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Frostys Virpio wrote: There is plenty of barely defended SOV for those people to try to grab if they are not willing to put in the effort of attacking someone who found a way to work their index up. The fact that there's no incentive to pu...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.26 05:53:57
|
11. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
FT Diomedes wrote: Part of the intent of Fozziesov is to make people get out in space to do things. People out in space doing things provide content for others. It doesn't matter whether the ratters and miners have the same alliance ticker as t...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.26 02:52:13
|
12. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
The need to inhibit agility in entosis-interceptors was recognized before FozzieSov went live, but it doesn't quite seem sufficient. What if fitting Entosis Links also broke bubble-immunity? I don't think the system can achieve its end goals of d...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.25 08:34:40
|
13. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Evelgrivion wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling? Something like that, but not exactly. With sixteen hours of vulnerability, almost...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.23 18:19:33
|
14. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Frostys Virpio wrote: You mean you want a free buffer defense multiplier in the time it takes to get your ratting/mining people rolling? Something like that, but not exactly. With sixteen hours of vulnerability, almost anyone can keep tradi...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.23 05:43:19
|
15. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kenneth Feld wrote: Well, the "Easier" part was you didn't need 50 supers to grind the EHP of the TCU, iHUB and Station Never was Fozzie sov supposed to be a welfare sov handout system. You still have to work for Sov Asking for a window to ...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.22 21:46:57
|
16. We want your SOV little things! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
The capture system for FozzieSov is beautiful, but the vulnerability and index-boosting mechanics make it a full time job to try and secure a newly captured system - and it's even worse if you don't make good friends with everyone in close reach o...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.07.22 18:41:17
|
17. Proposal: Power Grid Penalty for Interdiction Nullifier Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kenrailae wrote: T3's known to be broken. CCP quoted as saying they need to be put down like the rabid dogs they are. Kinda hard to make nit-picky changes to them when they have that 'rebalance bat' hanging over their heads Perhaps, but it c...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.06.12 02:37:50
|
18. Proposal: Power Grid Penalty for Interdiction Nullifier Subsystems - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
There's not a whole lot to this one. In principle, survivability historically demands tradeoffs in utility. Tech 3s haven't traditionally had to make much sacrifice to achieve a great deal of survivability and a broad range of utility. This could ...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2015.06.12 00:55:03
|
19. Sticky:[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
It's widely speculated that there will be some effort to pass jump capable ships onto different pilots in order to escape the fatigue timer. Would it be possible to prevent this by making ships carry and apply the original owner's fatigue timer (o...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2014.10.10 10:25:00
|
20. Sticky:[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
I suspect that people invested in Industry would be much more comfortable with operating from Nullsec if Blockade Runners, or perhaps other ships, through some sort of game mechanic, could dock at any outpost of their choosing, regardless of stand...
- by Evelgrivion - at 2014.10.09 20:19:00
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |