| Pages: [1] |
1. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Shalashaska Adam wrote: Increasing the number of charges for the secondary attack just makes the whole using of it more monotonous. The secondary attack needs to remain high alpha, low number of shots, that is what made it interesting. All th...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.22 23:06:36
|
2. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Khan Wrenth wrote: Jessie McPewpew wrote: Mike Right wrote: carriers are so **** after the patch their damage dealt in pvp spiked up by 350%?? less crying about ticks and dank instapops and more NERFING plz https://i.imgur.com/SRnIFFA.p...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.21 03:58:13
|
3. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Mike Right wrote: carriers are so **** after the patch their damage dealt in pvp spiked up by 350%?? less crying about ticks and dank instapops and more NERFING plz https://i.imgur.com/SRnIFFA.png You sound like someone who would go to neb...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.21 01:19:12
|
4. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Jessie McPewpew wrote: Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a cer...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.16 18:47:09
|
5. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Skyler Hawk wrote: Morrigan LeSante wrote: These are extremely low numbers. Particularly dismaying are the sub battleship fleet hulls regularly seen. Obviously support can be factored in, but out of the box for a carrier using two of the on...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.16 17:17:04
|
6. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Skia Aumer wrote: Wow, the flood of tears in this thread is amazing. 1. "Dreads are so much better!" No they are not. Dreads are stationary, carriers are mobile. Carriers can receive reps, dreads not. Dreads can be trackdised, fighters can be ...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.15 20:08:05
|
7. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Cade Windstalker wrote: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote: My math wasn't precise for the 15%; doing the math again it looks more like 11% less paper DPS while the missile attack still has ammo. The cycle time effectively went from 19 secon...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.15 17:02:13
|
8. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
WTH is with this explosion radius? Please make it similar to that of heavy missiles. This is ridiculous. No one flies heavy missile ships but you want us to be flying torpedos that are restricted to bombers and golems with a bilion tps.
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.15 16:36:34
|
9. Sticky:[118.6] Capital Balancing - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Lyron-Baktos wrote: Siege Mode's bonus to Weapon Disruption Resistance & Sensor Dampener Resistance has been reduced (T1: 60%, T2: 70%) What is the impact of this? It means your locking range can be reduced to sh**
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.06.15 02:46:59
|
10. Sticky:[Citadels] Dreadnoughts - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Seth Quantix wrote: Goldensaver wrote: Can the Naglfar's fleet hangar be nerfed in size or other dreads fleet hangars be bugged for now then? Because right now it is the only dread with the unique and powerful advantage of being able to carr...
- by Jessie McPewpew - at 2016.04.27 14:05:06
|
| Pages: [1] |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |