| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 |
21. Sticky:[Rubicon] New certifcates review - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 6 - Marauders, Interdictors and Heavy Interdictors don't have specific skills for their unique modules like Siege, Triage or Industrial Core modules. The requirements are included in the ships themselves, so if you can fly...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.11.14 02:15:00
|
22. Sticky:[Rubicon] New certifcates review - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Elena Thiesant wrote: Rough thoughts on useful manufacturing certificates. Still want to do one for T3 construction and another for capital ship construction. Snip Good proposal. Also make sure the skill astronautic engineering at least...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.11.08 18:26:00
|
23. Sticky:[Rubicon] New certifcates review - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Link skills are still required for mastery Level 1 on battlecruisers and T3s. Wasnt those supposed to come in at Level 5? In the manufacturing cert you introduce outpost Construction at Level 3, while not even at Level 5 you need Capital Construc...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.10.23 19:28:00
|
24. Sticky:[Rubicon] New certifcates review - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Just a few things I noted: - The blackops mastery doesnt seem to include any jumpskills - The Capital Navigation certification doesnt include Jump Drive Calibration (which is rather vital) - Bridge Capable ships (Blackops/Titan) has no requirem...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.10.08 13:11:00
|
25. Sticky:[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials, Round 2 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Denidil wrote: LtCol Laurentius wrote: Well, all ships currently equipped with ship maintenance arrays are Tech 1 mate . any SMA ship we get will not cost <1m isk for the hull. I dont see why, as long as you keep its utility ...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.06.26 19:13:00
|
26. Sticky:[Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials, Round 2 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
This is a much better version of the changes than the original proposal. One thing i dont get is that you avoid giving a ship a ship maintenance array usable for moving rigged ships (a relocation ship) because "it have broken the boundaries of T...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.06.26 18:59:00
|
27. [Odyssey 1.1] Tech 1 Industrials - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
CCP Rise wrote: Will keep listening about the Mammoth. There isn't an enormous amount of them being used so it felt like it wouldn't be too painful of a transition if it was better for visual direction. I'm less concerned about the continuity ...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2013.06.19 17:31:00
|
28. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
turmajin wrote: I take your point,but i dont think there would be many players able to handle a Black Ops BS ,who havent played the game for some time,and really should have a nice ISK balance to boot .After all the 1st rule in game is dont fly...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.11.17 03:21:00
|
29. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
turmajin wrote: Have to say i agree that the idea for a anti capital /POS bomb ,and laucher fits far better on a black ops battleship imo.No need for a new ship at all ,As a black ops BS allready has the abilities you want ie cloak,able to jump...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.11.06 19:54:00
|
30. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Gogela wrote: I agree with those talking about expanding the number of capitals in the game... a little diversity in the capital lineup could go a long way towards leveling the cap playing field, plus introducing them would drive a lot of trade...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.25 19:32:00
|
31. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sinzor Aumer wrote: LtCol Laurentius wrote: Sinzor Aumer wrote: Let me ask a stupid question. Why dont we see Motherships being countered by ordinary stealth bombers? A fighter-bomber can only survive after 10 bomb explosions, so a group ...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.25 19:25:00
|
32. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Sinzor Aumer wrote: Let me ask a stupid question. Why dont we see Motherships being countered by ordinary stealth bombers? A fighter-bomber can only survive after 10 bomb explosions, so a group of 15-20 SB pilots can easily incapacitate a whole...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.25 17:25:00
|
33. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Asuka Solo wrote: stuff Well you certainly managed to highlight just how much in disagreement we are
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.25 17:15:00
|
34. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Asuka Solo wrote: Humor me. Why are we proposing yet more sub capitals that can magically gank supers... instead of expanding existing capitals to give us this pure super ganking pleasure at a fraction of the cost of a super... without furt...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.25 08:54:00
|
35. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Angeal MacNova wrote: Not too bad of an idea, but not sure how you would "manually" aim in this game since there is no crosshair on screen to know for sure in which direction the ship is facing. Unless you're talking about lock on, fire, and if...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.25 08:35:00
|
36. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Asuka Solo wrote: You mean I could field a cruiser with 24k or more damage.... making super carrier DPS look like child's play.... And you think that's balanced? Its only viable targets are capital ships and its primary target are super ...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.24 21:14:00
|
37. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Aglais wrote: Don't ignore the real problem and tell me I'm "living in the past". We don't need to introduce more pointless ships to solve problems that can be fixed in other ways that, to me, make more sense. I'll leave it to you to con...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.24 18:30:00
|
38. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Aglais wrote: What I want to see is that a Titan is a truly rare occurrence and even the very most powerful alliances might ever own two of them at once. And going back to the tradition where titan wrecks become major landmarks in-system. Same ...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.24 17:41:00
|
39. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Larloch TheAncient wrote: LOVE the Idea!!!! Few changes I would suggest. Drop the whole "launch bomb Idea". Your "bomber" has to be manually flown INTO the desired ship. Your of course get destroyed and podded upon impact, plus lose a...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.24 17:15:00
|
40. Idea: The Strategic bomber - the hero EVE deserves - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Vulfen wrote: your idea is too flawed there is no way you can introduce a subcap hull that does more damage than a dread which is basically what you asking. id rather see a change to the current stealth bomber. ie; increase bomb launcher capac...
- by LtCol Laurentius - at 2012.10.24 15:40:00
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |