| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 20 30 40 |
141. [Request] Reduce rail turret and forge efficiency against infantry. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
The dispersion for all automatic weapons should be increased to make it harder to hit targets.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.08 17:07:00
|
142. [Request] Reduce rail turret and forge efficiency against infantry. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Shamarskii Simon wrote: I don't large turret so, i wouldn't know how blasters work for large vehicles. Well that explains everything.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.08 17:04:00
|
143. [Request] Reduce rail turret and forge efficiency against infantry. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
KA24DERT wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: KA24DERT wrote: I think it's time we admit that Rails and Forges are too effective at sniping infantry. I can't think of any other AV weapon in the game that doubles as an AI weapon in a MORE deadly ca...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.08 17:02:00
|
144. Assault HMG viable AV? - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
A damn shame.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.08 03:39:00
|
145. Assault HMG viable AV? - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Sad how rifles and machine guns do damage to tanks.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.07 16:59:00
|
146. making the madrugar viable??? really? - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: No he's serious. "Because I'm better at using a Madrugar than I am a Gunnlogi, clearly it's the superior tank." Because people get a hard on for anecdotal evidence. You have a hard on for the word "anecdotal."
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.07 16:57:00
|
147. Sticky:[Data Insights] Simple Planetary Conquest Kill Analysis plus Raw... - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Nerfs incoming due to data from PC, where everybody uses their best gear and brings their A-game?
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.07 15:52:00
|
148. Does 85% seem like a bit much? - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
No, the side sprinting while shooting, literally running a circle around me while all I can do is essentially spin in place to try to keep up, needs to end. You can't move backwards as fast as you can forwards. It's simple human physiology.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.07 14:58:00
|
149. HAV operation BEFORE changes happend - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Regular suit operation is 4x, why is it being bumped up to 8x? What will the destroyers and ultras be, 12x? 15x? This is ridiculous.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.06 15:40:00
|
150. Sticky:[Feedback] Normalization of AV Damage Profiles - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So you would want to swap to a shield swarm and back to an armor swarm as AV infantry? Example: A corp mate of mine, who is very good and very intellige...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.05 20:48:00
|
151. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
CCP Rattati wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making ...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.05 06:15:00
|
152. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Alena Ventrallis wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: No PG/CPU upgrade debuff Huh? An upgrade debuff? Hopefully it means they won't cost a ton the other way. They basically nullify each other, making them both useless: you need PG for something,...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.05 05:40:00
|
153. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
CCP Rattati wrote: No single hardener rule No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed) stay posted Good news everyone.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.05 05:37:00
|
154. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. Not really, seeing as Rails 3 shotted them. Oh wait, I forgot, you're fine with shitting damage. When have I said I want the Chrome turret damage back? I've re...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.05 05:18:00
|
155. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Tesfa Alem wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tanks were fine during Chrome. CCP Rattati wrote: Now go forth and fit them and demonstrate why we should, or should not make changes. Please post ProtoFit links whenever possible! You're on...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.05 05:17:00
|
156. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Tanks were fine during Chrome.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.04 20:14:00
|
157. [Request] Reduce rail turret and forge efficiency against infantry. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
KA24DERT wrote: I think it's time we admit that Rails and Forges are too effective at sniping infantry. I can't think of any other AV weapon in the game that doubles as an AI weapon in a MORE deadly capacity than it's AV role. The current bala...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.04 17:46:00
|
158. Sticky:[Feedback] Transporters - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
They'll be camped regardless of efforts to prevent. I think it's a bad idea that can't, not won't be implemented properly. It will be abused.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.04 17:24:00
|
159. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for ...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.03 18:34:00
|
160. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV and SHAV Progression - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Doom Then stop treating us as if we were hostages. You two aren't hostages. You are unwilling to compromise on any point for any reason without exception. You have been ho...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2015.03.03 18:25:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 20 30 40 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |