| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 |
4541. Ammo for vehicles idea -- let's put it to a vote. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Cody Sietz wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Bec...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 19:57:00
|
4542. Silly question, but a sincere one: Why does the charge sniper cost so much? - in General Discussions [original thread]
Humble Seeker wrote: I mean really. I've only messed around with sniping a bit, but is seems that the charge sniper got over-nerfed, no? It's probably still powerful, but doesn't making it proto only and expensive as a decent LAV only encou...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 18:32:00
|
4543. 1.7 Missile tanks: 12 round clip and .15s fire interval, will make large missile... - in General Discussions [original thread]
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Back then I saw a tank regens shields faster than 3 foge gunners could try to take it down, of course that was if we were lucky to land second and third hits. Probably had 2 boosters.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 15:40:00
|
4544. 1.7 Missile tanks: 12 round clip and .15s fire interval, will make large missile... - in General Discussions [original thread]
Jack McReady wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: E3 build 2012. When Sagaris was doing 70 and 0 driven by good pilots. And someone said but there was no AV back then? ERROR! try again! Back then we made four hundred THOUS...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 15:23:00
|
4545. 1.7 Missile tanks: 12 round clip and .15s fire interval, will make large missile... - in General Discussions [original thread]
Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: E3 build 2012. When Sagaris was doing 70 and 0 driven by good pilots. And someone said but there was no AV back then? ERROR! try again! Back then we made four hundred THOUSAND S K I L L P O I N T S per match. Everyone...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 15:00:00
|
4546. 1.7 Missile tanks: 12 round clip and .15s fire interval, will make large missile... - in General Discussions [original thread]
Harpyja wrote: Bendtner92 wrote: Fun facts (some of them already stated by Harpyja in above post): 1.8 seconds to fire all 12 missiles. 10 second reload time, 7.5 with max skills. 12 missiles will do around 6.4k damage with no damage mods e...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 14:58:00
|
4547. 1.7 Missile tanks: 12 round clip and .15s fire interval, will make large missile... - in General Discussions [original thread]
Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: I read this and went are you KIDDING ME??? 12 rounds in a second?? Tankers are going my tank is underpowered?? If 1.7 is true then just how is AV going to stand any ch...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 14:56:00
|
4548. Ammo for vehicles idea -- let's put it to a vote. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Because infantry don't have to go all the way b...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 14:43:00
|
4549. Ammo for vehicles idea -- let's put it to a vote. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Delta 749 wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Because infantry don't have to go all the way back to ...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 14:40:00
|
4550. Ammo for vehicles idea -- let's put it to a vote. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Ripley Riley wrote: I don't think it is a stupid idea, personally. Infantry have to worry about ammo consumption so why shouldn't vehicles? Because you have PRO AV.
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 14:39:00
|
4551. Vehicles: Don't be fooled by IWS Multiplier stuff - in General Discussions [original thread]
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqHgiF-KXQZXdFZ2ZzEyNW1neVdqYUF4bXU5NUdUOXc&usp=docslist_api#gid=2 My Evidence Lets pick Oh say HAV New HAV operation requires lvl 5 Vehicle command and HAV 1 Tally = 31...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 09:24:00
|
4552. Tanks - in General Discussions [original thread]
Lynn Beck wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Fire of Prometheus wrote: They are removing all specialized vehicles, I.e. Assault dropships, logi dropships, enforcer tanks (not that anyone really uses them) and the 2 LAV v...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 08:45:00
|
4553. Tanks - in General Discussions [original thread]
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Fire of Prometheus wrote: They are removing all specialized vehicles, I.e. Assault dropships, logi dropships, enforcer tanks (not that anyone really uses them) and the 2 LAV variants. that will most likely make all p...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 07:04:00
|
4554. 1.7 Tanker contact with CCP. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Kasote Denzara wrote: Am I one of the people that honestly does not give a **** about the vehicles? I'm honestly more hurt about how I can't be a Gallentean heavy... So then why are you posting on here?
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 06:48:00
|
4555. Announcement:Vehicle Changes and Beyond - Part 2 - in General Discussions [original thread]
Lanius Pulvis wrote: Okay, so on a longer look I've decided the turrets are all a joke. Really, the only turret that out ranges swarms is a large rail turret!? I assume these changes will affect the AI turrets as well. Clearly you don't intend ...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 06:02:00
|
4556. 1.7 Tanker contact with CCP. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Meeko Fent wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: If a thread is made about abolishing 1.7 and has 30 signatures, 1.7 will be abolished. 1.7 is making tanks a bigger sp sink and nerfing tanks into the groud ...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 05:21:00
|
4557. 1.7 Tanker contact with CCP. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Meeko Fent wrote: Because then ANYBODY can be AV Herp-a-Derp. Just like how anybody could be a good tanker and not get it blown up even in the current environment. LOL!
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 05:07:00
|
4558. 1.7 Tanker contact with CCP. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Meeko Fent wrote: Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: Hate to answer a question with a question, but in what way do you think effectively reverting vehicle/infantry balance to what it was before would help? The idea now is to have vehi...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 05:04:00
|
4559. 1.7 Tanker contact with CCP. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Mobius Wyvern wrote: 4 Proto AVers had to use 3 shots each to kill a Madrugar , not a Marauder. Please explain to me with your infinite wisdom how that scenario is in any way balanced. Sounds like they used teamwork to me. Don't have a p...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 05:03:00
|
4560. 1.7 Tanker contact with CCP. - in General Discussions [original thread]
Meeko Fent wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: If a thread is made about abolishing 1.7 and has 30 signatures, 1.7 will be abolished. 1.7 is making tanks a bigger sp sink and nerfing tanks into the groud to a point where they have to retreat to the red ...
- by Spkr4theDead - at 2013.10.16 04:58:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |