| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
18
   |
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:40:00 -
[931] - Quote
Obviously this is a bit of a derail from the topic at hand, but I've thought for a while now that the best way to balance caps and supercaps would be to simply do to dreads what the supercap buff did to titans-- give their hulls a massive bonus to capital turret dps, remove the siege module.
This would allow dreads to do their current siege DPS without a tracking penalty (they can hit moving caps), while able to receive remote assistance (they can be repped by a carrier fleet against incoming dps), and while NOT immobilized (If the hostiles lack a proper subcap fleet, it will be difficult to keep them tackled. Primaries could also warp out + back if incoming DPS exceeds incoming reps, provided they aren't tackled).
I think this change would allow a large dreadfleet to at least stay more competitive with a supercap fleet, whereas currently even a much larger dread / carrier fleet might kill one or two hostile supercaps, but at the cost of literally all their sieged dreads. Local reps are utterly useless vs the kind of dps output provided by even a small supercap fleet, and immobilization means that dreads will simply be killed in quick succession regardless of whether the hostiles tackle them or not. Doing away with siege would help to alleviate these problems.
Of course, this would also open another can of worms-- without siege, no party is forced to really commit to a fight. Then again, under current mechanics, people almost never commit to a fight anyway, since sieging is essentially suicidal. At least the possibility of being able to field dreads without losing them all might coax more dreadfleets onto the field, providing, at minimum, more opportunities for mistakes to lead to Goodfights(TM). |
Draahk Chimera
Interstellar eXodus
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:42:00 -
[932] - Quote
Nomad I wrote:Draahk Chimera wrote:While changes (nerfs) to the supercapital roster is indeed welcome I do remain of the opinion that the only way to breathe new life into 0.0 warfare is to nerf remote repping. Fleets with 20 or more logistics can be nothing but negative; they promote blobbing and the homogenization of fleets, and is an absolute killer of small-but-elite fleets (such as BURN EDEN). While blobbing is to some extent the product of human nature, in a game enviroment where you cannot break a single enemy without hitting it with 100+ ships blobbing goes from an annoyance to a necessity.
. Haha, someone from Burn Eden is whining masses of tears for being unable to adapt. 
Interstellar Exodus for those unable to read. Have been shot at but never a member of Burn Eden. I used them as an example to the fact that fleets with 20+ logis cannot be hurt by small fleets no matter how pro. And it is not a matter of adapting, it is in fact the opposite of being adaptive and inventive when the only answer to a tactic is to bring a bigger blob.
[IMG]http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s302/nattravn/EVE/draakhchimeranaglfar.png[/IMG] |
Jaari Val'Dara
United Warriors
51
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:42:00 -
[933] - Quote
Nerf seems nice, but there needs to be some changes:
1. Fighter nerf only applies to SC's. No need to stop carriers from fighting effectively against smaller ships.
2. Let SC's have a small drone bay, just enough to kill a single ship, not enough to be effective in a fleet fight.
3. Dreads need to get even bigger buff, 5 minute timer is probably okay, but they still need to hit capital ships effectively. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:49:00 -
[934] - Quote
Robert Lefcourt wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Kyjaro wrote:I can see 2 problems
- Carriers should remain deadly against sub-capitals, so give them a bonus to fighters to counter the penalty. I'm thinking about carriers ratting and the fact that carriers can be killed easily. They shouldn't have the penalty to fighters Or they could just avoid senselessly nerfing fighters in the first place... Oh, i see perfect sense in that. They want to prevent, that a mom can single-handedly take on fleets of every size and get away with it. This nerf will take care of the problem. To encounter a mixed fleet, you will need backup from now on.
I think you overestimate the degree to which fighters (or normal drones) from supercaps play a pivotal role in fleet fights. Even if they were used extensively, fighters are not as problematic as people keep making them out to be. They can be killed. As I keep mentioning, if people bring the right ships-- smartboming BS, bombers, or antisupport BCs (speaking of fleet diversity, remember when BCs and HACs used to be fielded alongside BS?) will *all* make short work of a fighter cloud. Once the fighters or drones are cleared, the supercapitals become deadspace-fit killmails waiting to happen. They're not like titans, where the only way to remove the dps from the field is to remove the ship. If people just kept that mind when putting together a fleet, they'd probably find it a lot easier to kill supercarriers.
E: Just to be clear, however, I do think that SCs need their normal drone bay sizes drastically reduced. Infinite waves of drones are no fun for anyone. |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P
C C P Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:51:00 -
[935] - Quote
In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. |
|
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
BricK sQuAD.
77
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:53:00 -
[936] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
soem sence. can you please give teh moros its drones back as well? its short sighted to remove drones from dreads imo
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We watch what they do and its nothing but false statements and lies.
|
Aase Nord
Vikinghall
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:54:00 -
[937] - Quote
Thank you CCP/goons/allies/alts.
Game is F.U.B.A.R
Its time for me to find an other game to spend my money on .
Bye |
Liranan
Silver Snake Enterprise
Against ALL Authorities
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:54:00 -
[938] - Quote
Quote:Fighters
Increase signature resolution to 400
That is seriously messed up. There is no point in nerfing fighters like this, they're rarely used in combat anyway and if you're nerfing them to prevent people from running anoms with them you are making a huge mistake there too.
Quote:Dreadnoughts
Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts.
Siege Module I: Boost damage bonus from 625% to 700% to compensate for loss of drones.
Siege Module I: Duration time reduced to 5 minutes. Fuel cost -50%.
Moros: Remove drone bonus.
Moros: New bonus: 5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret rate of fire per level.
Do tell us how a dread uses all this new DPS when it has no cap or when the ship they're supposed to be hitting is moving. Either do something about tracking or increase super cap sig radius. I'm sure you guys never thought of this and just looked at DPS.
Please rethink the fighter nerf and nerf Titan tracking instead.
As for the Goon CSM: looking for a job at CCP? You guys are so desperate it's pathetic.
http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo
This ****'s got to go - Jacque Fresco |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:55:00 -
[939] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
Glad to hear there won't be a needless carrier nerf. They've already been relegated to repping pos, PVE, and hauling subcap hulls. It would have been a shame to see their utility further reduced.
I look forward to seeing what changes result from this next iteration of theorycrafting. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
450
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:56:00 -
[940] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers. Tbh, the problem is more that there are some pretty grave imbalances between the different fighters GÇö most notably that the close-orbiting ones do not have the tracking to support their own orbits (which sounds familiar somehowGǪ reminds me of a different weapon system that begins with a GÇ£bGÇ¥).
If that part was adjusted, you could probably go ahead with the proposed change and not do all that much damage to standard carriers. Yes, average DPS would be down by ~30% against battleships, but that still leaves them very capable, and if need be you could always balance that out with a sig res skill bonus.
GÇöGÇöGÇö
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Just Another Toon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:58:00 -
[941] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea! |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
BricK sQuAD.
78
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:59:00 -
[942] - Quote
Just Another Toon wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!
ccp understand reason and logical arguments. wow did i actually just say that
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We watch what they do and its nothing but false statements and lies.
|
Tish Magev
Nex Exercitus
Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:01:00 -
[943] - Quote
Quote:nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!
Shush, back to your bridge!
Quote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
Good move, because you know there's a nerf and then there's an obliterate it to within an inch of it's life so all it has is the fighting capability of wet doyley ..nerf. |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:02:00 -
[944] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
You guys actually respond to critique before **** hits the fan now? WTF is happening there? You've all been replaced by aliens, are you? Stop with not giving us reasons to rage!!!11 |
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises
BricK sQuAD.
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:04:00 -
[945] - Quote
Many of them enjoy League of Legends. Wreck this game np..Work for LOL
BadBoyBubby wrote:Most of these changes...meh.
But reducing the drone bay on supercaps to 25 fighters/bombers max? That is seriously dumb. You've already taken out all the drones. You've nerfed fighters and fighter bombers again (how people forget so quickly) on sig radius, so they can't do much to sub caps anyway. So why reduce the drone bay capacity to the point where you can't even load a full flight of each type?? Seriously, WTF????
I'll repeat the question asked so often and never answered: DO CCP DEVS ACTUALLY PLAY EVE???
<-áI believe he is right > Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
|
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:05:00 -
[946] - Quote
Velin Dhal wrote:Malcanis wrote:Stealthiest wrote:How about a rename and some resizing. A super carrier that is not a carrier, but is the same size as a carrier?
As a 2 titan, 1 mS owner I say bout f**king time for most of this, But no dd on Sub-caps at all? No drones on a Super carrier?
I mean really!!!!! Yes, really. DDing frigates and cruisers is bullshit and you know it. How is it bullshit ? Sorry that my 30+ billion isk ship that I had to wait like half a year to build and took me 4 years of training to get in can instantly destroy your 10 cent frigate. I mean seriously, what am I thinking its so unfair of me. Why would I ever assume that time and money could buy power in a game running on a capitalist economy ? To make me even more of a bad guy, why would I assume that my hard earned money and dedicated skill training would give me the right to fly ships untouchable by someone with less skills and dedication than me ? I'm so ashamed of myself
I must say this is pure right on the dot for all super capital players. CCP you need to look at this post and understand frustrations by our community the super capital community. Bowing down to guys who fly battlecruisers and frigates and swarms and did not have the patience or the time and dedication to train for those super capitals in game. Thank you for wasting players time to train these ships and destroy as a whole a community that was over a years worth of training. CCP you fail!
|
Lyrrashae
Crushed Ambitions
Universal Consortium
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:05:00 -
[947] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Lyrrashae wrote:
Also ITT:
Whinging nullbear SC pilots who are basing their complaints around the assumptions that all of EVE revolves around them, and sov-warfare, and seriously believing that the rest of us give two fucks.
Keep the tears coming, you poor, deluded, blinkered little princesses:
They keep my HM/Nano-Drake's windscreen looking like new!
[Over-inflated sense of own importance ****-poster predictability]
Thank you for just proving every point I've tried to make.
No, you don't matter to the other 85+ per cent of the paying customer-base, arse-bag.
Go choke on your own **** and die, you self-important toddler, I'm not even going to start with this utterly disgusting ******* garbage you're spewing. "Untermensch?" Oh, ******* champion, you complete and utter imbecile. Tell me, what's it like being a bad joke?
|
Just Another Toon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:06:00 -
[948] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!
Now im angry |
Nocturrne Primitive
Cloak and Daggers
Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:07:00 -
[949] - Quote
Most of the changes look like a step in the right direction, but this indirectly nerfs carriers and leaves dreads broken. Removing some dps from one place and adding it back to another, leaves dreads just as useless as they are now. Normal capitals are within the reach of the average player and a nice goal for many people, if they were useful. It's the supers and titans that need to be nerfed.
Regards |
Usurpine
Galactic Defence Consortium
United Pod Service
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:07:00 -
[950] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
Uh, i cant believe, but ccp is reading this.
I need to change my mind about ccp. This looks good. Well done. Please go on !  |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Limitless Inc.
148
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:08:00 -
[951] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:People who buy obvioulsy unbalanced stuff because of the unbalanced **** in the stuff should stay quiet. You ought to know that it is going to be balanced sooner or later.
While I somewhat agree with you: Some of us flew them before they were buffed, you know..
And I like how CCP wants to nerf the raw HP on supers. Quite short-sighted, maybe they have forgotten what happened before they got their HP buff in the first place? When new DD and FB hit SiSi, we had motherships dying to 3-4 DD's and/or a few moms. My own Aeon on SiSi, still oldschool fit tho with triple CCC and dual rep, died to a few doomsdays and a single Nyx on SiSi in very very short time. That was before the big titan/mothership spam we saw after that.
Given how some entities easily field 50+ supers, you'll probably see them volley 5-10 supers on their initial jump-in.
I'm one of those who flew supers before they were boosted, during the boost, and I've piloted multiple different supers both in small-, medium- and big scale combat. I'm one that agrees they needed a nerf. But nerfing the hitpoints and sub-fighter bay is ********, the only nerf titans and motherships needed was to Doomsdays and FB's. The damage output is the only real issue. That'd be another nice little boost to Dreads as well.
Edit; Oh and don't forget we'll now be able to tackle them infinately, so the HP nerf makes even less sense. It's only gonna make them easier to volley for the other superblob.
Hilmar, Zulu, Soundwave: We care about our hobby. Do you care about your jobs? |
ANGAL 2000
FinFleet
Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:08:00 -
[952] - Quote
this is a act to kill super carrier you have 3000 toons in super carriers if not more and their useless let them dock.
they will get used after the patch and the ppl using them can use them for more then sitting in a pos waiting to die
LET SUPER CARRIER DOCK
|
Xue Slick
The Damned Legion
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:08:00 -
[953] - Quote
Just Another Toon wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet! Now im angry
And clearly a little touched... Carriers are perfect where they are. Cost to ability is about the best in the game. |
Smoking Blunts
Zebra Corp
BricK sQuAD.
78
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:09:00 -
[954] - Quote
Just Another Toon wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet! Now im angry
carriers are balanced, this change unbalances them and its good that it was reverted before it hit tq.
why dont you get that? you havnt flown a carrier have you?
CCP-áare full of words and no action. We watch what they do and its nothing but false statements and lies.
|
Furb Killer
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:16:00 -
[955] - Quote
Quote:Do tell us how a dread uses all this new DPS when it has no cap or when the ship they're supposed to be hitting is moving.
Cap? Fit cap rechargers? CCC rigs if you want even.
And it would be nice if this myth that dreads cant hit orbiting supers would finally die. I would do the math again, but i cant be bothered. Serious just pick a dread from EFT and a supercarrier, do them in a damage graph. Sure if it orbits you at 500m you cant hit it, but if we talk about realistic fleet fights then both the dreads and the SCs will be spread, there is no way to orbit all dreads at clsoe range. And if you orbit at 10km distance the dreads do like 90% of their dps.
If we talk about ganking a super, with only a couple of dreads present, then you can also make sure the SC isnt orbiting your dreads at close range by bumping him.
The only result of boosting dread tracking is that they will start to dominate webbed/painted battleships at normal ranges. |
Evil Celeste
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:17:00 -
[956] - Quote
Stupid question :
It is really that hard to adjust orbit ranges for fighters, so they can hit battleships "just fine" - lets say for 100% of dps with 2 target painters - but make them unable to seriously hurt sub bs ships?
Another question :
Wouldnt be the easiest way to lower the performance gap between armor and shield caps simply making slave sets to not affect capitals, making bonus shield ehp from leadership or titan to take effect immediately and slightly lowering the cpu needs for cap shield transfers?
3rd question :
Why are supercarriers capable of using ALL of their special bonuses in lowsec? Titans cant be build in lowsec - they cant fire dd in lowsec. No supercaps ca be build in wh space - they cant even enter. Supercarriers cant be build in lowsec - they can use ALL of their special abilities there...
It would make perfect sense if they lost their point immunity in lowsec, especially if you take into account, how much harder is to keep mom tackled by focused point compared to bubble and how useless are hics in lowsec for anything else but pointing moms. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
57
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:17:00 -
[957] - Quote
As you're removing logoffski can you go a little further and remove the ability to initiate self-destruct while aggressed please?
You need to do this otherwise the :goodfights: you anticipate will not happen. The target will simply self-destruct if he can't logoff. It happens far too often now, but it'll be happening a lot more with your changes.
Simple change - you cannot self-destruct while aggressed. |
Shade Millith
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:18:00 -
[958] - Quote
Just Another Toon wrote:You are stupid, best changes CCP have done and now your back tracking cos of a little forum pressure.. Carriers are logistics ships not offensive ships. Want to defend a carrier bring your sub cap fleet!
Now im angry
Carriers do not need a nerf. He is backing down from an accidental nerfing of a ship type that didn't need it. |
Angel Lust
Vikinghall
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:19:00 -
[959] - Quote
CCP
Why are you doing this ?
Do you want so many to ragequit that lag isnt a problem anymore maby ?
Well....
You got me.. |
Pesadel0
the muppets
RED.OverLord
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 11:19:00 -
[960] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
You are my hero if you fix minmatar caps ;D |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |