| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 |
101. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Takeshi Yamato wrote: It has been suggested to make the ASB cost some cap even when loaded. That sounds very reasonable at first, but it would make ASB fits MORE vulnerable to energy neutralizing compared to a SB+cap booster combo. Once they ge...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.03 11:05:00
|
102. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Wivabel wrote: I do not think cap free ASBs are a total mistake. it is all but impossible to fit any kind of a cap booster on to Shield ships. Dont you find it amusing that you can fit 2 kinds of boosters, and it operates equally well with bo...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.01 14:53:00
|
103. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Freighdee Katt wrote: Gypsio III wrote: Making ASBs cap-free was a fundamental mistake that shouldn't be repeated. This is a great point. They made a mistake. SO UNMAKE IT. It's not in the development schedule.
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.01 14:31:00
|
104. Sticky:Dev Blog: Back to the balancing future! - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
Whitehound wrote: Crude, ancient user interface. The flexibility of the UI to ship modules is incomparable to the one of drones and is a major disadvantage to drone users.
Drones cannot be transferred from cargo bays into drone bays and dro...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.01 13:43:00
|
105. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Captain Semper wrote: Few minutes ago i tested AAR... Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"? What's the use of MWD if 1 scram ...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.01 13:16:00
|
106. Removal of passive resist bonus on shield/armour hardeners - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
Sinzor Aumer wrote: drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
dampeners - same
signal amplifier - range & scanres &...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.01 05:46:00
|
107. Removal of passive resist bonus on shield/armour hardeners - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
Zilero wrote: Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT? You may be exaggerating about all ships, but it's definitely a nerf to shield super-capitals. Li...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.02.01 05:41:00
|
108. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
raawe wrote: Sinzor Aumer wrote: Maeltstome wrote: HonestlyGǪ remove the cap usage. I repeat - die in a fire. Constructive Capacitor management is one of the most interesting features of internet spaceships. Unfortunately, it is ...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.31 19:49:00
|
109. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Maeltstome wrote: 1.ItGÇÖs MUCH more expensive to run an AAR and 2.The lack of GÇÿNavy PasteGÇÖ means that either large AARGÇÖs have a disadvantage over XL-ASBGÇÖs or, if you are balancing these rep amounts against *assumed* navy cap boosters, ...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.31 12:17:00
|
110. Removal of passive resist bonus on shield/armour hardeners - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
Destination SkillQueue wrote: I don't really have a problem with this change, but I'd like to see the now even more useless shield compensation skills given a reason to exist. Some kind of a passive multi resist module does seem like an obvious...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.30 11:22:00
|
111. Removal of passive resist bonus on shield/armour hardeners - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
CCP Greyscale wrote: The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change... I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more . CCP Greyscale wrote: in the general case,...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.30 07:59:00
|
112. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Naomi Anthar wrote: Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ? I'm going to try new HAM Legion as soon as I skill for i...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.30 06:27:00
|
113. Removal of passive resist bonus on shield/armour hardeners - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
Ong wrote: CCP Greyscale wrote: Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.30 05:56:00
|
114. The Ship Balancing Schedule - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
CCP Fozzie wrote: Zarnak Wulf wrote: Just please - no T3 frigates or even more tank and gank subcaps! This is a statement I agree with strongly What's wrong with T3 frigates? Just asking.
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.29 11:29:00
|
115. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Looks like we're not getting any extra bonuses on existing mudules, reposting from the other thread: CCP Greyscale wrote: We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about hav...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.29 07:46:00
|
116. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Veshta Yoshida wrote: That said, the 800 plate is rarely used as most cruisers and all BC+ use 1600's but buffing one and not the others makes little sense. Were plates to have an additional benefit then let it synergize with AAR through a slig...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.28 12:32:00
|
117. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Vayn Baxtor wrote: Probably asking for too much, but could we see some small +5%' or 10%'ish resists for the plates below 400mm? +1 for this, under-sized plates should have some additional advantages. Furthermore, we can see some interesting ...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.28 09:42:00
|
118. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Could anyone of devs comment - why should Reactive Armor Hardener have so desperate cap consumption?
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.25 18:57:00
|
119. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Jojo Jackson wrote: The ability to fit Pith X-Type X-Large Shield Booster (twice oversized modul !!!!) at a Tengu (or BC) is compareble to fit [Legion, New Setup 1] 6* TACHION BEAM LASER I guess the issue of oversized modules deserves sep...
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.25 18:55:00
|
120. [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0 - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Little Dragon Khamez wrote: I think that Nanite Paste for normal reppers is the way to go instead of having them consume cap. Paste for all reps - sure. Instead of cap - hell no!
- by Sinzor Aumer - at 2013.01.25 18:51:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |