Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
21. Sticky:New patch on Singularity: Client performance improvements - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Posted bug report for a blank overview, ID 127075
- by Svennig - at 2012.02.03 18:45:00
|
22. Public Service Announcement. - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Af'ilia wrote: The test server isnt a server to test your ship fittings, and your mach **** fleets. It is for testing bugs. /thread. Any arguments? Yes. You are an idiot. Look, I find it annoying that there are massive mach gangs. I ...
- by Svennig - at 2012.02.01 11:05:00
|
23. Ideas for new modules - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Small/Medium/Large/Capital Remote module repair systems. Able to bring 100% damaged modules back online. Drone Maintenance Bays (repair drone damage). A POS mod for ship repairs. Also: A T2 Warp disrupt probe launcher that can use T2 warp disr...
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.16 23:31:00
|
24. Sticky:New dev blog: Little improvements: Making the world a little better pt.2 - in EVE Information Portal [original thread]
This is absolutely excellent! So many little problems getting fixed!! Could you put chat tab reordering onto the todo list next?
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.11 16:33:00
|
25. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Help me out here: what am I missing? Even the counter proposals aren't increasing the fitting. What am I supposed to put in the new lowslot of the harpy with only +10 CPU? What am I supposed to put in the new midslot of the hawk with only +10 CPU?
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.07 11:31:00
|
26. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Kalaratiri wrote: Nope. [Hawk DualMSE] [Empty high slot] Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters J2b Phas...
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.06 09:41:00
|
27. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line. General points: You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a...
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.05 19:41:00
|
28. When will assault ship balancing get a sticky here? - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Grimpak wrote: Svennig wrote: Hungry Eyes wrote: AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that makes s...
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.02 04:07:00
|
29. When will assault ship balancing get a sticky here? - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Hungry Eyes wrote: Svennig wrote: Hungry Eyes wrote: AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that mak...
- by Svennig - at 2012.01.02 04:03:00
|
30. When will assault ship balancing get a sticky here? - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Hungry Eyes wrote: AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.30 08:28:00
|
31. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: its more or less because cap power relays benefit the over all cap recharge more so than the mid slot cap rechargers do. i think they are viable now but, they cannot sustainably rep or be given a resistance profile that...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.20 08:08:00
|
32. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: just FYI our triage nids are running shield boosters and have been doing so for more than 2 years now. they do this while running 3x armor RR's for the gang. it works amazingly well. after reading your first post on the...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.19 23:38:00
|
33. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
CCP Tallest wrote: We are here and we are reading your feedback. We will be iterating on our balancing efforts based on the feedback in this and other threads and will release some more balancing in early 2012. <3 Tallest. Thanks for all...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.19 15:05:00
|
34. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: hey, your the one who said all carriers svennig. i've been having a reasonable dialogue with you here. no need to get uppity FWIW I'm referring to shield reps, not shield tanking. As far as I'm concerned, there is onl...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.19 15:04:00
|
35. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: i do not understand why you make such a generalization. you lump armor carriers in with shields using this arguement and an archon should not be able to even marginally shield tank. i disagree with your premise for your a...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.19 09:33:00
|
36. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote: the problem with changing the shield module stats is that they will be applied to every capital, including supercrapitals. i wold much rather see the ships that really need the change get worked on than such a broad and s...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.18 22:25:00
|
37. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
See how easy it is? Never mistake the volume of posts for the popular support of an idea. Especially when considering someone like Phunnestyle, who has demonstrated willingness to distort the feedback process to his own ends.
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.16 16:46:00
|
38. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Xtover wrote: Phunnestyle wrote: Phunnestyle wrote: [quote=Xtover][quote=Phunnestyle] It as you know has been more benificially balanced for the game in general as of late. The pinging aggro timer, yes great, disables solopawn Supers st...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.16 16:42:00
|
39. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
Phunnestyle wrote: You contridicted yourself more than once in a couple of lines, ROFL congradulations, that is a special skill for your CV XD Exactly as you say "changing a few fighters or fighterbombers is so damn hard" easiest thing in th...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.16 16:40:00
|
40. Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Capital Ships - in Test Server Feedback [original thread]
And so the drivel continues to flow forth. Phunnestyle wrote: 1 of the biggest probelm with alot of people is they want everything to be easy, due to some people,evidently a few above's lack of skill & cunning & being lazy bumms,th...
- by Svennig - at 2011.12.16 11:01:00
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |