| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 |
101. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
deezy dabest wrote: Her Chosen wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: I'm against any queuing system where full teams can go against not full teams. And making two separate FacWar queues doesn't help anyone. With any luck, we'll get a raiding mechanic ...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 15:14:00
|
102. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
nelo kazuma wrote: Only real issue I see with this is the match making system .it be allot more data to comb through with 8 spots trying to find appropriate match for each sqd not to mention if lets say a 7n7 are on both sides the amount of dat...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 11:12:00
|
103. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
I don't know about our groups but State Task Force can attest to our sync actively hunting them down. Our guys enjoy going against syncs as an instant redline really isn't that entertaining. Sometimes our syncs are full corp members and others it ...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 10:51:00
|
104. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Vrain Matari wrote: I'm agnostic on Team deploy for FW. The desire is certainly there but the potential for imbalance is high, so dunno, tbh. Regarding fairness in Pubs, 4 man squads are welcome but shared scans bear a huge chunk of the respon...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 10:12:00
|
105. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Reign Omega wrote: Bring back Corporate battles and none of this matters. We get Platoons in FW and we basically have the return of Corp Battles. Two platoon leaders get on voice in a channel and select opposing factions, "3, 2, 1, GO!" BOO...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 09:56:00
|
106. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Kevall Longstride wrote: It isn't time to rip off the band aid just yet. We need to get the scaling right on the OB's. FW OB support is different from other OB's because the Eve pilots get faction LP. Full teams will gain the OB's faster mean...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 09:23:00
|
107. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Bright Cloud wrote: Soraya again beeing useless as expected. Do you know whats going to happend with 8 man squads? Do you? OBVIOUSLY NOT! What you seem to forget that there is a negative impact for FW if you dont give us team deploy. The people...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 09:15:00
|
108. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Kevall Longstride wrote: I do support full TD in FW but I prefer the iterative approach we have to make sure we don't break something first. It's not a major problem in my eyes as we still have syncing that can be done. But there are other conc...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 08:56:00
|
109. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
Soraya Xel wrote: I'm against any queuing system where full teams can go against not full teams. And making two separate FacWar queues doesn't help anyone. With any luck, we'll get a raiding mechanic that allows full team action with short noti...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 06:55:00
|
110. 4 man squads in Pubs? Then give us Team Deploy in FW!!!! - in General Discussions [original thread]
I was always and still am a big proponent of four-man squads (fireteams) in public matches. Public matches should have a protectionist aspect to them that gives players and opportunity to familiarize themselves with the game and get those initia...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.29 06:23:00
|
111. Stuff I want to see for Tactical Gameplay - in General Discussions [original thread]
I want that enhanced como rose so much.
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.23 10:40:00
|
112. For Active Corps - in General Discussions [original thread]
We will usually mail the CEO as well when we send out an attack as a heads up.
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.20 00:30:00
|
113. Boycotting the Lag Facility - in General Discussions [original thread]
It needs to be removed in the meantime while CCP figures out what the heck is wrong with it.
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.20 00:02:00
|
114. [Video] Negative-Feedback. 1v1 Duels - in General Discussions [original thread]
In that ION pistol fight totally didn't realize I had the breach forge. It was a great oh **** moment.
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.17 15:47:00
|
115. PC Proposition - in General Discussions [original thread]
I can attest that Shep has been very helpful in getting folks started in PC lately. These ideas are well meant but can be hard to pull off. Just takes a flare up of even a small disagreement among some of the key organizers and it all vanishes in...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.12 23:34:00
|
116. CPM 2? - in General Discussions [original thread]
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Except; people form a personality of sorts over a consistent posting history length. for example I read all of Aeon's posts as disingenuous or angry... -Long drawn out pos...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.06.06 09:03:00
|
117. A Case For Keeping Marine SKINs Nontradeable - in General Discussions [original thread]
Eruditus 920 wrote: Why is the lead dev on the forums when the game isn't deploying players into battle? If Rat could help 1% isn't that time better spent? Fug I get frustrated with the culture of CCP. Double FACEPALM
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.05.27 03:40:00
|
118. Scout Registry / Killboard - in General Discussions [original thread]
CCP Rattati wrote: Raiding as a concept, in the first iteration is "plunder a District using free Command Point attacks, earning some money from the losses of the other guy plus DK". Uses all the same mechanics as normal PC for now. Future Rai...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.05.26 14:21:00
|
119. Announcement:Trans-Dimensional Anomaly Testing Grounds - in General Discussions [original thread]
CCP Rattati wrote: 1) Having the Exit invisible - will check 2) Don't like "skyspawning", easier to be camped after landing 3) Give exit point a strong scan and precision to avoid straight camping, won't work against railtanks 200 m away so pla...
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.05.21 14:35:00
|
120. Announcement:Trans-Dimensional Anomaly Testing Grounds - in General Discussions [original thread]
Jadek Menaheim wrote: Frame, please allow us to test exit points in the sky at some point in the future. I have to agree. These would be much better if the exits were sky spawn points I think. The visibility of the exit points has to go.
- by Kain Spero - at 2015.05.21 06:46:00
|
| 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 |