| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] [16]:: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
16
   |
Posted - 2017.07.01 22:11:58 -
[451] - Quote
Any chance we are going to be able to see Tech 3 cruisers able to enter 3/10 plexes again in the future? |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
1250
|
Posted - 2017.07.02 02:03:39 -
[452] - Quote
So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic
Central Omni Galactic Group
10
|
Posted - 2017.07.02 05:10:22 -
[453] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them.
Try the link to the FG loogs on the first post |
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1216
|
Posted - 2017.07.02 06:30:05 -
[454] - Quote
Concerning Loki visuals
Example
Please consider keeping missile subsystem as is in example above to me at least it redistribute mass a lot better it offset heavy ship front with slim middle and again somewhat exaggerated back so ship avoid looking like toothpick and generally unappealing and weakish.
Missile hard points look really amazing on it, as well as it reminds me of some kind of ballast tanks and since space ship submarines nothing further need to be said it only need to be respected.
Lastly but "worstly" both tank subs should have that slick combat ready look to it like augmented durability have nothing sticks out all is tucked and behind armor plates so that tumor of a sub ie camel hump move that sub from adaptive defence to covert reconfiguration because it needs more space for advanced equipment and ....whatever just remove it from tank subs.
Even better delete it from all servers and logs last remaining data copy of it toss in nuclear testing area nuke it for 5 years hard that if any atom of it remained launch it to sun and than when it gets there destroy the sun just to be sure.
You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear
Because >>I is too hard
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1267
|
Posted - 2017.07.02 09:20:57 -
[455] - Quote
still not seeing any mention about the dps being OP still in the slack group especially on the cloaky HK versions.. there just obsessed with tank
T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
1250
|
Posted - 2017.07.02 17:43:11 -
[456] - Quote
Blazemonger wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them. Try the link to the FG loogs on the first post
I did, and it's not that useful. I appreciate the offer, but I'm not really into the idea of sifting through a mountain of broken convo logs that so far have hardly any concrete data mentioned. By the time I have a clear enough picture of what's going on, it'll be on TQ at that rate. There's still a number of recent changes mention here that are not even discussed in those logs.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Pflepsen
Conquering Darkness
16
|
Posted - 2017.07.03 12:36:00 -
[457] - Quote
Cypherous wrote:The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc
I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration
Too stupid to figure out how to counter anything! F1 monkey! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
14977
|
Posted - 2017.07.03 14:03:01 -
[458] - Quote
Hey folks, we've moved this discussion thread over to the new forums.
The new version of the thread has the most recent version of all the stats and bonus plus information on industry, I highly advise checking it out.
I'll lock this thread now and direct all discussion over to the new forums.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] [16]:: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |