| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 |
1221. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
As if I cared what you thought of me.
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 22:58:00
|
1222. Top Forum Warriors: OMG ANOTHER DAMN LIST! - in General Discussions [original thread]
True Adamance wrote: Not this eye bullshit again....... True, you never told us you had a fan club!
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 22:29:00
|
1223. Top Forum Warriors: OMG ANOTHER DAMN LIST! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Ghost Kaisar wrote: You have all the forum warriors, and then there is Ghost. I don't know how I got all these likes Same way I did. By just posting and not giving a sh*t if people like what you have to say.
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 22:28:00
|
1224. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
DUST Fiend wrote: If you want one AV player to reliably handle one vehicle player, then why does the vehicle player have to pay significantly more ISK, SP, vulnerability of deployment and recalling, time required to deploy and recall, as well a...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 22:24:00
|
1225. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: so if we propose to rattati to mid-line the Heavy guns, then bonus them by hull type we should be good. For instance, a DHAV would be the zero-splash, high dispersion, intended to murder tanks not footsc...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 22:23:00
|
1226. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
so if we propose to rattati to mid-line the Heavy guns, then bonus them by hull type we should be good. For instance, a DHAV would be the zero-splash, high dispersion, intended to murder tanks not footscrubs, but the UHAV would be the low DPS, sp...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 19:43:00
|
1227. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs Through role bonuses eh. I was thinking doi...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 19:10:00
|
1228. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
actually now that I think about it, the determination whether a turret is AV/AI could be determined by the theoretical new tank chassis, the UHAVs and DHAVs
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 17:15:00
|
1229. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
I don't think that there are any easy fixes. Honestly we'd need to know more of rattati's intent for vehicles ultimately.
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 16:38:00
|
1230. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
I disagree. Anti vehicle weapons are anti-vehicle weapons. I feel that heavy weapons need to be dual purpose rather than ungodly and unreasonably more powerful. The same applies to turrets. Making heavy turrets gimped against infantry by more met...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 15:41:00
|
1231. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
I would actually focus on how to make vehicle turrets more incrementally lethal, and the vehicles less costly to go with the proposal. The dispersion on the blaster turrets is highly likely to cause problems if tanks lose durability.
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 15:05:00
|
1232. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
Honestly I suggested that Heavy weapons be the primary anti-HAV weapons with Light AV weapons and sidearms keyed for lighter vehicles once upon a time. People rioted. Mostly my concerns that a weapon has to be able to kill a target pertains to th...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 14:47:00
|
1233. Weapon Damage Profiles Broken - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Scrambler rifle has been confirmed to be micro-charging The profiles are not broken
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 11:43:00
|
1234. Scrambler Rifle Micro-Charging [Test/Video] - in General Discussions [original thread]
This post is informative, and interesting. Excellent work to the people who made it happen.
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 11:42:00
|
1235. Top Forum Warriors: OMG ANOTHER DAMN LIST! - in General Discussions [original thread]
There is no forum warrior, only alts of GJR
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 11:32:00
|
1236. sòèFë¦S+¦S+ÇS¦êdustTçîµ£ëTéúS¦êsñÜté¦T½ÿS¦ås¦¦s«îs࿵¦ítö¿tÜäµèÇFâ+sæó - in General Discussions [original thread]
I really wish I hadn't blown off learning foreign languages as a kid
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 11:31:00
|
1237. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
True Adamance wrote: Eh..... I'm not convinced that HAV can be fixed with the content we have now. I think it has more to do with the platform limitations
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 00:59:00
|
1238. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
Tebu Gan wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Did I mention I'm in favor of the turret lethality climbing some to match the lessening of defenses? Something something tank cannons being effective. This would be an acceptable trade off. Although,...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 00:29:00
|
1239. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
One Eyed King wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in t...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.20 00:26:00
|
1240. For peer review: - in General Discussions [original thread]
True Adamance wrote: Some of that I like. Some I don't like. What of 180mm Armour Plates, Active Armour Repairers, Shield Regen being unbreakable but slow and passive, etc? Are they covered in the proposal? This proposal is based entirely o...
- by Breakin Stuff - at 2015.08.19 22:40:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |