Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Tau Phoenix
Eternal Darkness. Blades of Grass
47
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:44:21 -
[361] - Quote
Whilst we are discussing apital changes. Another comment i'd like to suggest and this will either go down well or in flames:
Will CCP ever consider letting subcaps (including their pilots) dock in the carrier to allow them to be jumped to a location and then undock from the carrier?
This could be a good mechanic that may be used for various activities in game. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2047
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 13:54:02 -
[362] - Quote
Are freighters, jump freighters and Bowheads included in the "give them all FH/SMB, ewar changes" thing, especially the web resistance?
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
288
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:01:13 -
[363] - Quote
Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
|
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:15:54 -
[364] - Quote
Aesir Terona wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Aesir Terona wrote: Thanks for the giant "Screw you" to everyone who trained triage II. Completely uprooting the the triage carrier pilot will go over grand.
Maybe you should read the blog before posting rubbish. Triage modules will be fitted to the Force Auxiliary. They will replace the Logistics Carrier. ITT - people jumping to conclusions and solid proof you can't please everyone. I didn't train for a goddamn Force Auxiliary either way, it ends up nerfing all capitals more for the sake of making more "options", which, following CCP's record at balancing, means one thing will be outstandingly good, and the other two will languish in disuse because CCP isn't very smart. +1 I feel your pain. I want to know if I don't like what you did to the ship class can I have my isk and skills put back into something I would like to use in the game? :) |
Sayod Physulem
EVE University Ivy League
36
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:34:23 -
[365] - Quote
First Post To elaborate my point against the change to combat refitting:
The entire point of those changes is, to get more fights as I got it. That is why you want to make capitals more useful (thus more used) and eliminate the n+1 problem.
Now we all don't want to lose our ships, so we try to predict the outcome of battles and try to foresee if we will win or lose. And we won't engage if we forsee that we will certainly lose - I mean we are not that stupid. So if the outcome of a fight is predictable and both of the parties know the game very well and are intelligent, the party which will lose, can predict that and will avoid the fight.
So if you ignore ganks ("fights that happend because one party was bad at the game") you can only get people to fight, if the outcome is not predictable from the outset. Because then both partys can think they got chances.
And factors that are determined IN the fight are less predictable than factors that are already determined beforehand. Now in case of fixed fitting, you have a fixed factor making the outcome more predictable resulting in less fights. But if the outcome depends on your performance IN the fight - your refitting in the fight, the fight becomes less predictable. Which is good as I we proved before. This is the same reason, why I like the idea of trickshot doomsdays because the outcome is determined in the fight and not before, making people more likely to try their luck.
On a sidenote: Keep in mind, that you can never eliminate the n+1 problem completely. By introducing a upper limit to your defensive capabilites (triage) you don't eliminate the advantage of having one more damage dealer to kill the enemy faster don't eleminate the advantage of having backup when your meatshield dies If there is "the best" doctrine, then the group with more people will always perform better with that doctrine than all the other groups. So the only thing that can ease the n+1 problem, if you make the doctrines and the interactions between ships more complex, that it become harder to know "the best" doctrine. Basically you need to give people an advantage if they know the mechanics better, but also make sure that they will never understand the mechanics fully or else at some point the word of "the best" tactic will spread to everyone and even the "blobber" will use them. As an example: Rooks and Kings found out that logistics are powerful and dominated larger groups using them but at some point other people learned that aswell. So you always need that new tactic that is even better - and given that people are crafty, they will eventually hit the roof and find "the best" tactic in the given meta.
You can only really eliminate that by constantly shifting stats and attributes and trying to obscure what you do, so that people will never perfect their playstyle, because when they find out something that works really good, the meta already changed. So maybe create a plan constantly changing stats before people reach that point of knowledge and tell you which ships are op and should be nerfed. The game doesn't have to be balanced - it just shouldn't be possible to know which of the ships are the good ones. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2204
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:53:37 -
[366] - Quote
Tappits wrote:fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks! Do you know how the first alliance made the first titan? They worked hard. they did not beg CCP to change the game to let them do something others can do without all the hard work. I, too, fetishize BoB.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 15:01:30 -
[367] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
As it should be? |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 15:23:58 -
[368] - Quote
So in the image of Home World and Sins of a Solar Empire. I would like to ask that corvettes be added to super carriers. A slower ship that is able to stay on the field against subcaps longer but with fewer ships per squadron. I think it would still give supers a uniqueness and provide a missing part the the carrier class arsenal. |
Tiberizzle
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:03:44 -
[369] - Quote
How will this RTS interface for fighter control interact with fleets? If you can't engage on a locked target or aren't locking targets to engage them, will you be able to direct them to attack a broadcasted target? If you are able to engage on a broadcasted target, will it be possible via interaction with the broadcast status line and broadcast log, or will you have to find it on overview or (worse) direct the fighters at the target's bracket in space?
Will there be assist or guard mechanics for the new fighters? Drone mechanics have long been preferred by multiboxers for their ability to allow some limited scaling. Fighters almost gained this with the skynet nerf but then lost it before the skynet nerf left sisi -- if fighters don't gain something comparable to assist for this iteration in place of the lost drone assist mechanic, multiboxers will be largely shut out of capitals and you can expect hundreds if not thousands of subscription losses to result.
Fighters are too expensive to carry hundreds of or send waves of on a 100km death march to the target currently. You can fit a 20 man frigate gang out for the cost of a single wave of fighters at current costs and the frigate gang will shred the wave of fighters inside of a minute with no losses. Will fighter and fighter bomber cost be adjusted to reflect the reality that they're pretty much kamikaze against even modest opposition? If not, carriers and supercarriers will not have a viable damage dealing mechanic as launching fighters for 300M per wave is an invitation to be trolled and nothing more.
Will fighter volume or the fighter bay volume be adjusted to accommodate extended engagements where AOE DPS or free fire on fighters can under current mechanics rapidly render carriers and particularly supers pretty much helpless when they're reliant on fighters for damage?
A major concern for many players who use capitals in PVE is that fighters don't currently auto-aggress NPCs. Will fighters auto-aggress NPCs after this iteration which removes the ability to use regular drones which do auto-aggress NPCs?
edit: also embedding fighter staging / launching in the inventory screen as shown in the preview is pretty much ebola, have you considered not doing that? |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force
227
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:18:46 -
[370] - Quote
Nerfing HPs on Caps/Supers is all well and good but is the build cost going to be reduced proportionally? No one is going to fly 100bn ISK ships with **** Hit Point values.
As for the ECM vulnerability, I'm not convinced. It's the one thing that makes Supers different to Capitals. Changing that just makes them a bigger version of the previous class. If they're going to have an inbuilt warp strength that's so high then why bother making it overly and unnecessarily complicated? Just leave the immunity in place.
Again, like above, if you're going to do that then their build cost (and so sales cost) needs to be reduced to reflect their increased vulnerability on the battlefield.
12 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
|
Niclas Miula
Valar Morghulis. Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:18:50 -
[371] - Quote
To be honest, I like it pretty much.
This, the new structures... Nice stuff is coming to EVE it seems.
But I still hate the Fatigue stuff and the new SOV. And I want more trailers. What do I pay ya for? Work for it Lazyboys |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:27:12 -
[372] - Quote
Querns wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful. I disagree very much. Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes. Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations. What even is full tank??? Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it? Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch? Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time? Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps? Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile? Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive? If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap? Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way? tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill" All of these choices are largely congruent to a situation where you can't refit, except they matter even more when you have no replacements. The small depth of tactical decisions, amplified by the removal of cost associated with changing your modules, in no way is worth the complete neutering of all the strategic decisions involved in picking your fit in the first place. I'm curious why do you dislike the utility of the current carrier platform? |
John Selth
Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion
27
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 16:37:46 -
[373] - Quote
fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks!
Titans are supposed to be an alliance or corp wide effort to achieve. Rally your corp together and get them working for one. I don't like to say #nopoors but LITTERALLY nopoors. Go out and earn it like every other corp has done in Eve history
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
125
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 17:10:30 -
[374] - Quote
The changes are very intriguing, and I have a few follow on questions:
1. Since the fighters are now in a squadron, and damage bars were replaced by remaining fighter indicators, will the effectiveness of the squadron diminish with the number of fighters lost (i.e. DPS drop and other effect strength/likelihood diminish)?
2. Can you add tactical overlay UI circles to the vertical plane similar to the ones on the horizontal plane to aid in not getting Kirk'ed because our only frame of reference is in line with Khan's thinking?
3. Can we get color fill and line brightness controls to help us customize the tactical overlay so it is not always so bright?
4. Can we customize the placement of the distance indicator circles according to preferences such as setting our own intervals (say every 5km instead of 10km) and have "always on" settings for weapons range spheres of our liking (like a UI checkbox or something)?
5. When we detach and move the camera from our ships, can we have the tactical UI center on our squadrons/drones, or centered on the camera, or any spot of our choosing? Would it be ridiculous to have that tactical overlay added instead of replacing our current (or maybe even a different color so we know that is not our ship's tactical UI but our floating one)? |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
261
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 17:10:48 -
[375] - Quote
Great buff for dreadnoughts and titans.
Carriers will now become 'meh', and supercarriers will become even more 'meh'.
Been around since the beginning.
|
Flavious Signtai
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 17:30:40 -
[376] - Quote
The idea of changing the triage mechanic to a totally different capital ship is crazy, and not in the good way. Like was mentioned in the blog, many of us bought and use our carriers specifically because it is a capital logistic platform.
Carriers and Supercarriers will now become obsolete, as dreadnoughts will become the DPS platform, with carriers serving no role. Yes, supercarriers have the remote ECM, but now... that's really the only thing going for it.
This is a horrible idea to create a new ship class, stripping carriers of their one good trait.
However, if you gave carriers greatly increased damage/hp bonuses to fighters and drones, all may not be lost.
Do not nerf the hitpoints... capital ships are, well, capital ships, and shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a few tackled orthrus'. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1849
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 18:39:53 -
[377] - Quote
Definitely excited to see Dreadnoughts retaining a good role and to see Carriers becoming less jack-of-all-trades, master-of-all-trades. I look forward to trying out the new dedicated Force Auxiliary ships.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Marius Vuld
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 18:52:50 -
[378] - Quote
As someone who is inching closer to fly a carrier, and was training for the logistics role, I am eager to know what is happening on the skill side of things.
Will the prerequisites for FAUX captials be the current carrier skill book?
Or will I require another 500m isk skill book with a x14 multiplier to fly each of the new racial FAUX ships?
If so would you consider giving the same number of SP for the new FAUX skill book as the racial carrier already trained? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:01:21 -
[379] - Quote
So, with capital neuts, will we see dreadnaughts with utility highs or is it going to be a similar scenario in terms of "pre-assigned" fittings for the highs?
any idea if the naglfar will experience any issues in terms of fitting balance with the reduced turret need?
Will the meta versions of modules follow similar suit to subcap meta (post module balancing)? |
loquacious7
String Theory For. U The Obsidian Front
23
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:03:21 -
[380] - Quote
Flavious Signtai wrote:The idea of changing the triage mechanic to a totally different capital ship is crazy, and not in the good way. Like was mentioned in the blog, many of us bought and use our carriers specifically because it is a capital logistic platform.
Carriers and Supercarriers will now become obsolete, as dreadnoughts will become the DPS platform, with carriers serving no role. Yes, supercarriers have the remote ECM, but now... that's really the only thing going for it.
This is a horrible idea to create a new ship class, stripping carriers of their one good trait.
However, if you gave carriers greatly increased damage/hp bonuses to fighters and drones, all may not be lost.
Do not nerf the hitpoints... capital ships are, well, capital ships, and shouldn't be able to be destroyed by a few tackled orthrus'.
None of the changes are for the player base, you know the ones that played a game loyally for years. Suddenly your years of skills and organization force projection was discouraging new players. So they nerfed and nerfed til it was miserable to play the game, felt like your first year all over. But making the game easier for new players to skill into the needed ships seems to have backfired. Turns out the new players really wanted to pay their dues just like the bitter vets. :) they wanted to be in big groups fighting in doctrine ships that people fit tooled and theory crafted over for weeks, they just did not know it then... Only thing is a lot of those players left when they saw the game changed every time someone complained about the game not being fair/null warfare is broken or too hard to start playing. So 60k counting bots turned into 40k, so they said fix it some more, then it went down to 30k. Now with the same logic applied comes a bigger nerf but with bling and promises of more fun. If only someone would say wow remember when Saturday's had 60k players maybe we should see what worked best back then and build from there. Then use that old trick, convincing players the game will be easier if you have more stuff and more skill points. *evil laughGäó* " Hope, I'll take that first." *** Remember when people had goals like get logi to V, learn to sit in a Guardian, all the while your next four hundred days or more will be carrier skills. That goal was worth something back then, billions in skill books then billion or more in hull and fits. Suddenly you have the ultimate utility ship (if it is gold in color) ;) ... You could be useful in really big fleets and say I was there... back when we would complain that bashing outpost and blowing up blockade units is dull. Wow if we only knew then what we know now... :) |
|
Rena'Thras
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
26
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:12:42 -
[381] - Quote
I just have one question:
Will the existing ratting carrier still be functional? (A Carrier that rats with its fighters and remote reps them or that takes part in team ratting as a repair platform.)
That's what a lot of people are going to complain about going away since they've trained skills to use it for that purpose. As a non-cap pilot, I've been training in that direction because it seems like a fun form of gameplay.
Will the Carrier class still be able to use remote repair modules? Hell, even L sized Battleship ones (that T2 Logi can use)?
Also, will "Fleet Auxiliaries" have to be in triage mode to use ANY remote reps, or only Capital class remote reps? Will they be able to use weaker ones without nerfing themselves into the dirt (since I can think of no other way to describe "intentionally become immobile AND completely subject to EWAR simultaneously")?
And will this "great gameplay" decision also apply to ships putting out damage? Will Titans and Dreadnaughts be forced to only be able to deal damage in siege mode and be unable to conduct their primary role without activating a module that makes them a sitting duck?
...sorry if I'm coming on a little heavy there, but this is just annoying after all the SP I've put into going for a functional ship that's about to be not functional anymore.
.
...also, as a person that likes playing healing roles in games, I hate it when people go about nerfing healing classes while buffing damage dealing classes or not subjecting them to the same conditions (e.g. in WoW, making healers super mana dependent while removing mana management from damage classes, or here, making healing dependent on triage mode while damage dealing is still possible outside of siege mode.)
I just like things being handled equally.
.
EDIT: Okay...that was more than one question. My apologies. ^_^; |
Bill Lane
Strategic Insanity FUBAR.
101
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:17:48 -
[382] - Quote
Rena you animal. Good questions, and good points. Logi carrier is a great tool for helping younger players get into fleet PVE ops in less-than-ideal ships, especially in sites that would melt t2 logi.
http://www.militarygamers.com/
www.fubar-alliance.com
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 19:19:37 -
[383] - Quote
Firvain wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
As it should be? Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :) I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw!
I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance.
So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up! |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:21:47 -
[384] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Firvain wrote:Mr Floydy wrote:Having seen a few people mention it now.... I too am now concerned by the idea of Capital points/scrams. These need to be balanced extremely carefully to not just favour the biggest group of capitals. As others have stated, if you get bubbled/pointed by a HIC you can kill it and escape. If you have 10s of supers pointing you? Well you're stuffed.
As it should be? Well yeh true, I guess if you've been caught by 10x supers it's fair game. :) I just want to see it balanced out so that it isn't too easy to overcome the lack of a HIC / Dictor bubble. As to what numbers that actually works out at I don't know. I'm torn really, looking at it from the counter side - you could easily bait in capitals this way and cyno in a bigger fleet *shrugs* explosions ftw! I imagine that there is every chance that there will be Capital warp core stabs too which could change the balance. So much excitement for these changes. Going to be a good shake up! Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.
Seems like a weird work around for the same effect. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5851
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:38:56 -
[385] - Quote
Will "no EWAR immunity" carry into sensor strength, allowing capitals to be vulnerable to (enough) ECM, dampers and disruptors?
Will this design migrate into marauders and other sub-capitals? I imagine being able to differentiate ships that use similar weapon systems based on which types of EWAR they're most resistant to would be useful for mixing things up a bit: make caracal/cerberus resistant to webbing, while the rupture might be resistant to disruptors (relying on innate speed to provide resistance to webbing).
An interesting rework of capitals so far.
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
5851
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 20:47:03 -
[386] - Quote
For the "sickle" doomsday, rather than picking two random points in space, what about selecting two or more ships with the weapon pathing between the selected ships? I would expect this to be faster than picking two points in space. If warning/feedback is required, have the attacking ship illuminate the selected targets with something akin to a target painter effect.
I really don't want patches of space lighting up red: it's a tacky effect in ESO and reduces the need for situational awareness.
(on the flip side, I guess in the scenario that you'd be using sickle doomsday you're probably going to be playing in time dilation, so speed isn't really as important as sheer cool factor)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
289
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 21:51:17 -
[387] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Well, it makes good sense for capitals to tackle each other well. The reused to be a tactic called "ghost riding" where you would cyno a carrier in, pilot would eject a hictor or Dictor from ship bay, and then jump into that ship for tackle.
Seems like a weird work around for the same effect. Ha, I like that. Always realised it could be possible but never thought people would actually do it :p |
Jack Miton
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
4720
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:21:09 -
[388] - Quote
Caps can, and do, already fit points. not sure how this is an issue...
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Void Phoenix
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 22:49:57 -
[389] - Quote
Without getting into details, this has been the most exciting dev blog I can remember in a long time. +1 |
Ahed Sten
83
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 23:09:39 -
[390] - Quote
Sooooo....Goodbye ratting carriers?
Not only will the micro required to manage fighters be more trouble than it's worth, fighters will also be confined to grid and won't follow you in warp, which, lets face it, is currently the best thing about them.
Otherwise, interesting changes I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |