| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 [70] 80 |
1381. Null cannon is OP - in General Discussions [original thread]
this thread is OP. needs a nerf.
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.12 01:10:00
|
1382. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Frankly, initial thought: Terrible But afterwards: good idea. Open areas CAN be vehicles domination area while in cities they have absolutely no part, many areas they even cannot enter. BAMSIS. Everybody is happy.
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.12 01:06:00
|
1383. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.12 00:17:00
|
1384. Post here if you get PSN disconnects and your internet is fine - in General Discussions [original thread]
x
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.12 00:13:00
|
1385. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
CCP, this is how we balance vehicles!
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:59:00
|
1386. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
EternalRMG wrote: OP this community needs more brains like yours soo... Get to a cloning station and clone yourself 1000 times then go to CCP head quarters and tell them your freaking BRILLIANT ideas, and if they dont listen clone yourself more...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:51:00
|
1387. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
[Reserved]
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:50:00
|
1388. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
Crash Monster wrote: Novawolf McDustingham The514th wrote: They have shown zero interest in placing objectives in buildings or at defendable choke points, look at the domination maps - A perfectly good city/pyramid like 100 meters away from ...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:37:00
|
1389. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
Crash Monster wrote: Yeah, I'm not keen on it if we CAN'T go take our AV out and beat on tanks and jeeps. Also, in this world, it's going to be REALLY difficult to make a living as a sniper. CQC is no place for a sniper rifle I see your com...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:33:00
|
1390. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
EternalRMG wrote: This would give DS a purpose they could be used to travel SAFETLY between different locations in the upper part of the map, where the tanks are and LAVS can afford to go beacuse it would be insta death for them They might get ...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:28:00
|
1391. Reserved - in General Discussions [original thread]
Okay, call me crazy here, but what if we buffed tanks AND made parts of the map where a tank could have 10,000 DPS and 50,000 HP, but it wouldnt matter because it couldnt access that part of the battlefield. (inside buildings, underground, skyscra...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:25:00
|
1392. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
It's brilliant! Literally everybody gets what they want! I play tanks to kill other tanks. If I never saw infantry, I really wouldn't care. I just wanna have tank battles at extreme ranges without worrying about some dumb punk with hacked AV nades...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:23:00
|
1393. What if vehicle balance meant parts of the maps were indoors? - in General Discussions [original thread]
Okay, call me crazy here, but what if we buffed tanks AND made parts of the map where a tank could have 10,000 DPS and 50,000 HP, but it wouldnt matter because it couldnt access that part of the battlefield. (inside buildings, underground, skyscra...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:17:00
|
1394. AV balence - in General Discussions [original thread]
A good solution would be to have parts of a map where infantry stand 0 chance and tank stand 0 chance IF they don't have people of the other kind helping them. A good example is the bridge map, but this means tanks get a buff, though, that buff wo...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:08:00
|
1395. AV balence - in General Discussions [original thread]
iceyburnz wrote: I hope CCP watches this and takes notes for thier soonTM MTACS. MTACs will be good at first, then theyll be worse than tanks if anyone gets more than 5 kills/battle with one.
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 23:01:00
|
1396. Fix your connection problems! - in General Discussions [original thread]
This is the only shooter I know where I have to restart twice after getting disconnected to play a single match. I'm constantly getting disconnected and just now, I had to delete and reinstall the game just to play it. Sure, this would've been fin...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 22:55:00
|
1397. Anyone else getting signed out alot? - in General Discussions [original thread]
just happened just now
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 22:51:00
|
1398. Reserved - in General Discussions [original thread]
Bones McGavins wrote: Webifiers. The ability to tackle tanks is the first step to balance. Webifire missiles or forge varients that do little or no damage but stop the vehicle for 1-3 seconds, webifier nades which stop them for 5-10 seconds. ...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 17:39:00
|
1399. How to solve the tank/AV imbalance? (AV please give feedback) - in General Discussions [original thread]
Other tankers will hate me for this, but other than the fact that it's officer forge vs standard tank, i have no problem with forge guns. They require skill and do reasonable damage for their level. Let's assume we had ADV tanks with 8k HP and PRO...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 17:38:00
|
1400. AV/Tank balance, OP mlt LAVs, and useless DS's - in General Discussions [original thread]
NAV HIV wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: 1) We need adv and proto tanks to defend against adv, proto, and officer AV 2) Reduce mlt LAV HP by 50% 3) Buff DS PG by 50% 4) Buff tank PG 25% 5) Increase lethal LAV ram speed to one half of top s...
- by Charlotte O'Dell - at 2013.06.11 17:27:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 [70] 80 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |