Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:17:00 -
[211] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Manssell wrote:You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow. It's funny you should mention this.................
If done correctly this could literally be a game changer. I wet myself a little at the possibility of an Archduke Franz Ferdinand moment in Eve! |
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
426
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:39:00 -
[212] - Quote
I like these changes.
I have been saying it from the start something like this is required. As so many other mentioned the clown car aspect of the ally system was a bit ********.
There was no incentive to hire mercs when you can just enable... "I WANT HELP" and just about every corp could join for free. Those people know it was a ******** system that basically killed the Merc market. Not that you care probably as long as it did not kill you right? Great way to look at the bigger picture that is EVE.
People complain this put the advantage back to the aggressor...? No, this makes people now think before they take on Ally that is about as useful as your average trade hub camper. At least now it will be back to were corps look for people they no can defend them, go after your targets, and not just sit in Jita, Amarr, Rens, Hek, or Dix hoping to see a Flashing red target come past.
For the Past month people have been saying HTFU when it came to the Clown Car Ally system.... I suggest you also HTFU with these changes.
And if a 30 man corps decs you, what the problem of getting a 30 man ally in for free or 20 mil that, there are some that ask for no payment which means you only need to float the ally cost.
With these changes I surely have not lost hope with CCP. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African
*Hair done by LGÇÖOr+¬al, because I'm worth it. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
243
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:58:00 -
[213] - Quote
Since Jade's WAR is now MUTUAL he can always have his current dogpile 'Allies' join his Alliance quit but still retain the mutual Wardeck correct? -Now if one of his allies was an Alliance only one of the corps would have to join his alliance then quit then rejoin the old Alliance to continue the old 'DOGPILE' CORRECT?
The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
639
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 06:10:00 -
[214] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Since Jade's WAR is now MUTUAL he can always have his current dogpile 'Allies' join his Alliance quit but still retain the mutual Wardeck correct? -Now if one of his allies was an Alliance only one of the corps would have to join his alliance then quit then rejoin the old Alliance to continue the old 'DOGPILE' CORRECT?
In the same way that mercs never uses the ally system when the ally agreement locked them in indefinitely, these 'free allies' won't help if it means they'll have to join your alliances.
This is also because it makes it impossible to help out in several mutual wars. And it means only alliances but not corporations can get help with a mutual wardec.
There is just no good reason not to allow allies for a mutual wardec, since now it will simply obsolete the feature again by everyone except RvB, thus removing the BEST consequence mechanic from the Inferno changes (together with the dogpile mechanic).
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
639
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 06:17:00 -
[215] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:I like these changes.
There was no incentive to hire mercs when you can just enable... "I WANT HELP" and just about every corp could join for free. Those people know it was a ******** system that basically killed the Merc market. Not that you care probably as long as it did not kill you right? Great way to look at the bigger picture that is EVE.
You're absolutely wrong.
These 'free allies' are absolutely NO substitute for actual mercs. They basically provide only some distraction for the attacker at best and everyone knows it.
What killed the merc profession was not this, but the fact that they didn't want to be locked indefinitely into a ally agreement (fixed) and there not being an actual merc market for them to peddle their services. Allowing themselves to differentiate themselves from the many that will PvP for free (but will never save your POS, camp the enemy station, defend your mining op etc)
And many players also overestimate the number of actual effective mercs in this game. There are probably a hundred times more wars in empire then there are actual mercs to help them out with.
The dogpile ability of 'free allies' needs to stay to keep the deterrent for the many corporations that can't get a merc corp to help them out. Especially against null-entities like Goons and TEST that are simply too powerful for ANY current merc group to take on (and don't say PL, because they are hardly true mercs anymore, and the only one able to hire them to take on the CFC... is the CFC) Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:05:00 -
[216] - Quote
Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1146
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:25:00 -
[217] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP.
Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
IceGuerilla
Poseidon's Wingmen Perihelion Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:44:00 -
[218] - Quote
This might have been mentioned already, possibly in another thread, but: Under this plan, the Armor Phasing skill increases cap use due to the faster cycle. Please either add a skill to counteract this or modify the skill to reduce the cap requirement in line with the cycle time reduction. |
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:47:00 -
[219] - Quote
Armor Resistance Phasing = awesome, even if it increases cap drain. |
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
667
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:09:00 -
[220] - Quote
So I am in a big alliance I can bring all the friends I can carry.
But if I am smaller but ask people to ally with me in a war that costs money.
Thats stupid.
Not only stupid, I find it very unsandboxy. I thought that they wanted to build mechanics to that small alliances and corps have a future. And a future that doesn't involve getting absorbed by bigger entities.
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit.
And this. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:18:00 -
[221] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit.
Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1153
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:29:00 -
[222] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.
Um no.
Pretty sure I have not seen anyone from CCP say it is an exploit. So it is totally legit until:
A) CCP makes an anouncement specifically saying that being an ally in a war dec is an exploit.
or
B) When 1.1 patch comes out and does not allow entities to save large alliances from... oh wait, sorry that is not the reason. *cough* To save the mercenary part of the.... lolololol... *cough* Sorry about that. I just don't see this change as what will bring back mercenary's as a real part of the game as long as there are players who view PvP as being fun and not a job.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:48:00 -
[223] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving. Um no. Pretty sure I have not seen anyone from CCP say it is an exploit. So it is totally legit until: A) CCP makes an anouncement specifically saying that being an ally in a war dec is an exploit. or B) When 1.1 patch comes out and does not allow entities to save large alliances from... oh wait, sorry that is not the reason. *cough* To save the mercenary part of the.... lolololol... *cough* Sorry about that. I just don't see this change as what will bring back mercenary's as a real part of the game as long as there are players who view PvP as being fun and not a job.
Uhm no ? No exploit ? That's why they fixing. So, stop crying me a river.
|
Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:58:00 -
[224] - Quote
I am more concerned with what is the point of these feed back threads. Check the first and you'll see people pointing out the exploits of the ally system. CCP refused to listen and didn't change a thing. After deployment we find that the Ally system is being exploited and CCP realise they need to fix. We now have a new feedback thread where the feedback is being ignored. Whilst I feel that Jade is being a bit antagonistic and hasn't helped things, I do feel that this development really is a major step back.
Q's: - Why does the ally cost need to scale so rapidly? Given the two week timer and renewal cost it's almost absurd. - Given the two week timer, why not allow allies a chance to drop from a mutual war at that point.
I agree the current system is terrible for merc's, but this response takes us straight back to pre inferno war decs. It actually makes the development done so far seem a bit pointless. |
Untouchable Heart
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:14:00 -
[225] - Quote
Mana Sanqua wrote:I am more concerned with what is the point of these feed back threads. Check the first and you'll see people pointing out the exploits of the ally system. CCP refused to listen and didn't change a thing. After deployment we find that the Ally system is being exploited and CCP realise they need to fix.
Yes that's why they need to change.
|
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:14:00 -
[226] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:eet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort: Quote: 1 ally = 0 Million 2 allies = 10 Million 3 allies = 30 Million 4 allies = 70 Million 5 allies = 150 Million 6 allies = 310 Million 7 allies = 630 Million 8 allies = 1 Billion 9 allies = 2 Billion 10 allies = 5 Billion 11 allies = 10 Billion 12 allies = 20 Billion 13 allies = 40 Billion 14 allies = 81 Billion 15 allies = 163 Billion 16 allies = 327 Billion 17 allies = 655 Billion 18 allies = 1 Trillion 19 allies = 2 Trillion 20 allies = 5 Trillion 21 allies = 10 Trillion 22 allies = 20 Trillion 23 allies = 41 Trillion 24 allies = 83 Trillion 25 allies = 167 Trillion 26 allies = 335 Trillion 27 allies = 671 Trillion 28 allies = 1 Quadrillion 29 allies = 2 Quadrillion 30 allies = 5 Quadrillion 31 allies = 10 Quadrillion 32 allies = 21 Quadrillion 33 allies = 42 Quadrillion 34 allies = 85 Quadrillion 35 allies = 171 Quadrillion 36 allies = 343 Quadrillion 37 allies = 687 Quadrillion 38 allies = 1 Quintillion 39 allies = 2 Quintillion 40 allies = 5 Quintillion 41 allies = 10 Quintillion 42 allies = 21 Quintillion 43 allies = 43 Quintillion 44 allies = 87 Quintillion 45 allies = 175 Quintillion 46 allies = 351 Quintillion 47 allies = 703 Quintillion 48 allies = 1 Sextillion 49 allies = 2 Sextillion 50 allies = 5 Sextillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!
Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1038
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:43:00 -
[227] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv. I'm sure you realize that it appears that CCP bends to the will of Goons. I'm pretty sure that CCP is part of the goons at this point. This change has got nothing to do with the fact that the goons were involved
I'm pretty sure it was that the whole infinite allies thing broke the war dec system
Why are you people all so quick to jump to tinfoil hat conclusions all the time? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2543
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:45:00 -
[228] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:Man that utility menu is a sexy little thing...
agree @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1038
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:49:00 -
[229] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving. Um no. Pretty sure I have not seen anyone from CCP say it is an exploit. So it is totally legit. True, wardecs for 0 isk were not an 'exploit' but they were definitely broken My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:05:00 -
[230] - Quote
Untouchable Heart wrote:Mana Sanqua wrote:I am more concerned with what is the point of these feed back threads. Check the first and you'll see people pointing out the exploits of the ally system. CCP refused to listen and didn't change a thing. After deployment we find that the Ally system is being exploited and CCP realise they need to fix. Yes that's why they need to change.
+1 |
|
Stridsflygplan
Ventures
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:28:00 -
[231] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote:Armor Resistance Phasing = awesome, even if it increases cap drain.
The skill should also reduce cap cost of each cycle by the same amount. Just stupid to have a kinda of negative effect build into a skill since you cant unlearn them or disable them. |
Hermia
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:29:00 -
[232] - Quote
There should be consequences for indiscriminate Ganking in high-sec.
If a member of a corporation gets ganked in 0.5 or higher then CONCORD should award a free war declaration to that member's corporation. Then, it would be great if such a ticket could be used independently or used to join a coalition, like Jade Constantine's.
Hulkaggeden, while not breaking game mechanics is still a cynical play on the mechanics. I do laugh (with not against) when Mittani calls it "Emergent Gameplay" lol, but its not right they get off scott free, no consequences.
Something like this has a measure of control so it wouldn't upset the Mercenary market and frankly i want to see a JC Coalition. Thats emergent gameplay. |
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:30:00 -
[233] - Quote
At work so can't read the whole thread (so requisite apologies if I'm repeating someone) but given I find myself in the strange position of mostly agreeing with Jade about something, I thought I'd continue this world of bizarre strangeness by trying to write a cogent post on the ally changes.
First though:
To tinfoil hatters. Enough, please. Yes this change is massively advantageous to GF, but testing and change control cycles virtually guarantee that this change was planned and proposed long before GF declared war on SF, so unless you have evidence that they bypassed this, cut them some slack. To devs: T20. Yes it was years ago. No it's not fair that people still wonder about such things, but remember you're arguing with people on the internet. It makes us all crazy people.
Now the meat of the issue.
I'm not going to repost Jade's proposal. Go look it up for yourselves, I'm at work. What I did find interesting about the thread, though, was Soundwave's comment; namely that war should not necessarily be fair. In context, he very clearly meant that war should not be guaranteed to be fair to the defender, and everyone I think agrees with this. Left unsaid, however, is this. Why should war be fair to the attacker? An analogy was made in defence of the Soundwave's position in the same thread by comparing a fleet engagement in nullsec and posing the question as to whether or not a larger fleet should wait for its target to find allies before stomping on them. This analogy I think is perfect. Should, in contrast, a larger fleet be allowed to stop the smaller fleet from batphoning for support? Is it not part and parcel to engagements that the aggressor should always be allowed to bite off more than he can chew, and pay the price for it?
If we accept this design philosophy, then we can look again at how this applies to the war system. Consider a large alliance A that declares war against small entity B. In nullsec if B has friends C to Q, that give some numerical parity to the action, then A would pause before considering agression, because there would be actual consequences to the action. In hisec, however, the opposite is true. A can engage without any real risk of reprisal for the following reasons
- It is economically more difficult for B to declare war on A
- If A would beat B easily B would need C to Q and that would be even more economically non-viable
- If B engages C to Q in aid, A simply stops paying the war costs and withdraws from the conflict
- if B makes the war mutual, all other parties are locked out of the war, allowing A to kill B at its leisure
There is simply no mechanism by which alliance A can ever face serious consequences for biting off more than they can chew. Are we really saying that aggressors should get to dictate all the terms of a war? Surely when a CEO (or director) presses the button to release the hounds, then at the back of their mind, there should always lurk the possibility that their action could lead to the destruction of all they hold dear, and the mechanic as is manifestly fails to provide that.
On the other hand there is the issue that the mechanic IS targeting - namely that of "dogpiling" being a contributing factor in the lack of a vibrant mercenary marketplace. Honestly I'm not in a position to judge whether this is the case or not, but I can see how it could be. In any case I think we can agree that it's axiomatic that once a merc is in a contract they shouldn't be locked into it for all time because they fight voluntarily. In the spirit of the above, however, there should be some recognition of mercs that cry off their contracts before the term expires. That's a whole can of worms I'm not going into now though. In the meantime, however, Jade proposal does address a lot of these issues? Is it perfect? Far from it - the issue of how you deal with this situation for instance
Hypothetically wrote: Alliance A has 200 Dudes Alliance B has 100 Dudes A decs B B batphones C who has 3000 dudes
is poorly defined and needs consideration, but some mechanism whereby the defender CAN tip the odds in his favour by calling 2000 of his good friends (even if they're not his closest) I think is sorely needed.
Now I have to go fix an issue I introduced to UAT because I was thinking about this... |
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
1507
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:39:00 -
[234] - Quote
Offtopic posts removed. Please stay on the subject.
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Viking Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:55:00 -
[235] - Quote
Mutual wars: Allowing no Allies at all is an interesting approach. Since both confirmed it as a War they want allies should cost a lot and should be limited. If you want an ally you can hire them to war dec your mutual enemy. It would be nice to see an option to "add an ally" by paying the same fee you would have to pay to wardec again. Limiting the number of allies to +1 over your enemy would create an interesting competition between mercs to hire. It would have meaning who you hire and also gives the other side the option to add 2 others once you have called in allies.
Wardec costs: Capping the cost at 500m is a good move. The limit is high enough to stop random wardecs but still allows to hire mercs by paying that bill. In order to address the balance between forces it might be possible to simply always count the higher one. If 20 declare war on 50 they pay the same as if 50 declare on 20. If a big alliance (like triple A) is wardecing a small entity they would have to pay the same needed to wardec them. The big powerblocs have the money to do that and there is no way you will stop things like that by raising the cost but it would be a bit more even.
What happens to the Money Concord gets? Obviously its a ISK sink. But would it help to get a part of this money into a fund for allies? If you get wardect by -A- there is 500m going to concord. 200m of those are available to hire mercs, payout or just covering the concord cost for adding allies. Even with an exponential raising formula 200m should be sufficient to hire some mercs to assist you without spending too much money on concord and more on the mercs directly.
New Skill "GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners" Shifting resistance faster is good but at the cost of doubled energy cost it looks very hard. If this was a Rig i could decide to put in or not like the ancillary nanobot accelerator (to reduce repper cycle time) it would be ok but a skill is either you have it or not. Some cap use reduction wouldn't hurt and make it worth while skilling it.
@Web-Dev-Team: please add an option to hide "tinfoil hat posts". would make this thread much more readable ;-) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:23:00 -
[236] - Quote
If a war becomes mutual why not allow both parties to hire mercs?
Have you considered the terms of surrender changing when a war goes mutual, so the former agressor can end up with a penalty for deccing the wrong corp/alliance instead of just stopping the war getting at least 24 hours of break and putting an economic pressure on the defender if they want to counter-wardec? |
Dex Tera
New Eden Burns Moist.
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:28:00 -
[237] - Quote
Hermia wrote:There should be consequences for indiscriminate Ganking in high-sec.
If a member of a corporation gets ganked in 0.5 or higher then CONCORD should award a free war declaration to that member's corporation. Then, it would be great if such a ticket could be used independently or used to join a coalition, like Jade Constantine's.
Hulkaggeden, while not breaking game mechanics is still a cynical play on the mechanics. I do laugh (with not against) when Mittani calls it "Emergent Gameplay" lol, but its not right they get off scott free, no consequences.
Something like this has a measure of control so it wouldn't upset the Mercenary market and frankly i want to see a JC Coalition. Thats emergent gameplay.
clearly you are a moron! as there are consequences for "indiscriminate Ganking" in high-sec as you call it first you lose your ship to concord second you take a hit to your sec stat. obvious but hurt pod pilot is obviously but hurt lol stop being a whiney b***h and HTFU! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1334
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:40:00 -
[238] - Quote
"Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons"
Is basically all you people are talking about.
Jade has effectively won his tinfoil hattery by having you all discuss the very rare cases where a massively larger force attacks a much smaller one. Before the Goons started miniluv, this basically happened once in the last 6 years.
The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Quite the opposite, if this remained unpatched it would mean that EVERYONE needs to suffer this ****** dogpile mechanic just so the Goons can have it happen to them, which is basically the desire of the incredibly biased posters in these threads.
The hilarious part in all this, is that highsec crying out in pain because Jade wants allies to be free would make them very happy.
Nearly every wardec is either relatively equal numbers attacking one another or a much much smaller "griefing" entity going for a larger target, both scenarios are better played out under these changes. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars The Volition Cult
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:49:00 -
[239] - Quote
Quote:And Now For Something Completely DifferentGǪ
Lastly, there is a new skill out there, called Armor Resistance Phasing. It reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners (or, well, the one that currently exists) by 10% per level. This skill costs ca. 600k, has a skill rank of 5 and is sold wherever good skill books are sold (i.e. the usual places).
Tbh It would be better if the new skill change the amount of resist shifting per cycle then provide a shorter cycle.
Right now it shifts 1% per cycle => from 15% to 30% in 15 cycles (150 seconds)
Say that Armor Resistance phasing increas the shift % by say .25 % /cycle
with level 3 it would shift 1,75% per cycle => from 15% to 30% in 9 cycles (90 secounds) With level 5 it would shift 2,25% per cycle => from 15% to 30% in 7 cycles (70 secounds)
|
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:31:00 -
[240] - Quote
Darth Nenny wrote:GSF took a bite of hghsec and are now crying that there teeth are broken.... let them learn there lesson, i think this is a awesome system we have now.... Except for the tinfoil hat brigade, what evidence exists that GSF asked for this nerf? I thought that was pretty well debunked by now. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |