| Pages: [1] |
1. Sticky:[Phoebe] Long Distance Travel Changes - updates! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Tri Vetra wrote: I guess there won't be any "freighter convoys" after all. I think we can expect CCP to look at the JF ranges again after they make nullsec industry less inconvenient.
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.10.09 19:21:00
|
2. Prototype: Dojos - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
I have my reservations about this. But as an alliance- or corp-created structure that is only anchorable in Low or Null, I think it would be fine to have then. I think that way you still keep it exclusively as player-run content, there is still ...
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.25 16:08:00
|
3. Occupancy SOV: Players as the content.GÇÅ - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kerrec Snowmane wrote: Torneach Structor wrote: What determines the precise nature of the "somethings" that are dropped? I deliberately did not elaborate because I was hoping people's imagination would fire up and by filling in the holes,...
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.24 20:27:00
|
4. Occupancy SOV: Players as the content.GÇÅ - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
What determines the precise nature of the "somethings" that are dropped?
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.23 22:46:00
|
5. Petition to remove pvp ship combat from high sec. - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
You just posted another thread in F&I after the other one got moved to F&I. Dude, like, stop. EDIT: But in all seriousness, you won't change anything. A defining feature of EVE is the "you can get dead anywhere at any time" thing. That w...
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.17 15:11:00
|
6. LITTLE THINGS INITIATIVE - NUMBER FIELDS - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Hm. I can't really see any sort of drawback other than user error, which is already present in some degree or another. So yeah, sounds nifty.
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.14 06:02:00
|
7. I'd like to see tech 2 and tech 3 carriers, dreads, supers, and ... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Orion Pax wrote: Torneach Structor wrote: Orion Pax wrote: Torneach Structor wrote: Orion Pax wrote: More things to blow up. That's hardly justification for implementing the suggestion. What tactical role do you want them to f...
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.12 05:20:00
|
8. I'd like to see tech 2 and tech 3 carriers, dreads, supers, and ... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Orion Pax wrote: Torneach Structor wrote: Orion Pax wrote: Torneach Structor wrote: What tactical role do you see these ships filling? More things to blow up. That's hardly justification for implementing the suggestion. What ta...
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.12 04:48:00
|
9. I'd like to see tech 2 and tech 3 carriers, dreads, supers, and ... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Orion Pax wrote: Torneach Structor wrote: What tactical role do you see these ships filling? More things to blow up. That's hardly justification for implementing the suggestion.
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.12 04:27:00
|
10. I'd like to see tech 2 and tech 3 carriers, dreads, supers, and ... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
What tactical role do you see these ships filling?
- by Torneach Structor - at 2014.09.12 04:15:00
|
| Pages: [1] |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |