| Pages: [1] 2 3 |
1. [REQUEST] TAC RR Fix - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
longer range = lower DPS shorter range = higher DPS very simple formula CCP
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2014.01.30 16:52:00
|
2. Tanks - Balancing Turrets - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I commented on your other thread and I'll say the same here. +1 for a logical balancing theory +1 to maintain survivability of tanks, while making them suited for AV, not AI +1 to make tankers use a light turret for AI (additional crew if they ...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2014.01.30 16:50:00
|
3. Request: weapons and dropsuit testing Area - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Been suggested before, many times. Still a good idea
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2014.01.11 21:25:00
|
4. A Modest Proposal - Looting Vehicles - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
+1 nothing bad or exploitable about this idea
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2014.01.11 21:22:00
|
5. [Request] War Points: Dynamic Assist Rewards - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
+1
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.12.14 19:11:00
|
6. Add coordinades to the overwiew map - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
+1 It has been said before, still a good suggestion that would improve QOL for SLs and organized squads everywhere.
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.12.14 19:07:00
|
7. Vehicle colision damage to infantry in 1.7 is too high - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I don't want to live in a world where murdertaxi is a viable tactical option.
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.12.14 01:21:00
|
8. [Request] Making HAVs more tactical & squad-oriented - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
BulletSnitcheZ wrote: Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This needs to stop. Tanks are supposed to be a squad vehicle, not a...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.11 02:23:00
|
9. [Request] Making HAVs more tactical & squad-oriented - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
BOZ MR wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: BOZ MR wrote: BulletSnitcheZ wrote: Right now, tanks are basically a one-man vehicle. A solo HAV driver with a prototype railgun can destroy an organized 3-man HAV crew in about 1 - 2 shots. This nee...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.11 02:22:00
|
10. Aerial Vehicle Ideas - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
+1 for a balanced suggestion. I hope some form of this is coming for DUST.
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.08 16:19:00
|
11. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Vaerana Myshtana wrote: I support this. It does require an overall Field Commander (in the MCC?) to receive the WP. I would also have the WP only count towards OBs and not towards his/her rewards from the match (SP/ISK). My recommendation is...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.08 16:05:00
|
12. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Vermaak Doe wrote: And one that puts the vast majority at a major disadvantage is a needed one? who said anything about major. From the very start I've stated that the WP rewards etc... can be adjusted to whatever is balanced. The idea being...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.08 10:41:00
|
13. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Vermaak Doe wrote: So you want to give a further advantage to people with Eve support? Particularly encouraging blob tactics which shouldn't affect dust? Having oms is enough of an advantage without making it mandatory Yes, so long as its ...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.08 02:14:00
|
14. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Vermaak Doe wrote: That's contribution to the actual battle, not ship babysitting by taking and holding low-orbit they are 1) contributing to the battle by providing superior OBs to Dusties and 2) risking their ships by hanging out in lowse...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.08 01:39:00
|
15. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Adstellarum wrote: so how about the capsuleers can earn some LP just as if they were sitting in a plex.. This is essentially what I'm getting at, and yes LP for the fleet (or some other reward or form of currency) would be appropriate for ...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.08 01:37:00
|
16. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Ulysses Knapse wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Put an incentive for fleets to sit in low orbit (not just a warp stabbed throw away destroyer with a cloak) and you'll get a lot of people looking for good fights. Pirates, Capsuleer mercs, Awoxer...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.07 23:54:00
|
17. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Vermaak Doe wrote: It just rewards people for doing what they already should be doing As does, Rezzing, resupplying, capping objectives, shooting people, spawning people in a mCRU ;) DS pilots, hence that argument in invalid.
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.07 23:53:00
|
18. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Put an incentive for fleets to sit in low orbit (not just a warp stabbed throw away destroyer with a cloak) and you'll get a lot of people looking for good fights. Pirates, Capsuleer mercs, Awoxers and gankers. It creates content, it will cause ...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.07 23:43:00
|
19. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Ulysses Knapse wrote: Sextus Hardcock wrote: Vermaak Doe wrote: Not war points, no need to give the blob more power in Eve. Isk however I'm fine with Well, there should be an amount of WPs which is acceptable however small it is. No. ...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.07 23:40:00
|
20. WPs for control of Low Orbit - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Vermaak Doe wrote: Not war points, no need to give the blob more power in Eve. Isk however I'm fine with Well, there should be an amount of WPs which is acceptable however small it is. Dust corps should be incentivized to join up with Eve c...
- by Sextus Hardcock - at 2013.04.07 23:34:00
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |