| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 |
1361. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects. Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels t...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 20:39:00
|
1362. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/62328-Inferno-1-2-Brawling-tormentor.html Here is an example of the Corp Tormentor. It is a passive tank with 4,750 + HP base and 6,250 eHP with the Damage Control Active. These values are with my current ski...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 20:37:00
|
1363. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
duster 35000 wrote: 168 reps per second with a 4 second delay is pathetically slow...and once hardener stacking is fixed shields will never be able to win cqc vs a blaster, atleast blaster vs blaster, more damage to shields and shields can'...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 20:11:00
|
1364. Tweak the amarr assaul - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: 3 Proto heat sinks to gain 6 total shots? Do you think people would even bother if it took that many to only gain 6 shots? Sure why not. In those really close quarters fights those 6 shots might be the difference betwe...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 19:44:00
|
1365. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in additio...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 19:00:00
|
1366. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You co...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 18:40:00
|
1367. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: 2. Active Armor reps would be good, though I'm not opposed to the idea of lighter passive reps for a "cap stable" fit in addition to active reps. Reactive Plates maybe? You could make shields constantly recharging though t...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 18:34:00
|
1368. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
duster 35000 wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard....
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 10:37:00
|
1369. [Idea] Factional Corporations. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
No it's basically him wanting to funnel new players in an NPC corp run by "generous volunteers" such as himself essentially for use in FW.
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 07:10:00
|
1370. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Let me give some more constructive feed back. Logisitics and Support Vehicles - I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of veh...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 03:43:00
|
1371. Rattati, Breach Plasma Cannons? plz. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Fizzer XCIV wrote: True Adamance wrote: I'm confused as to why there is even a projectile speed reduction being considered? The slow rate of fire for the high damage is already fitting with the qualities of breach weapons..... slower projec...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 03:28:00
|
1372. Rattati, Breach Plasma Cannons? plz. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I'm confused as to why there is even a projectile speed reduction being considered? The slow rate of fire for the high damage is already fitting with the qualities of breach weapons..... slower projectile speed is not necessary.
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 03:22:00
|
1373. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Let me give some more constructive feed back. Logisitics and Support Vehicles - I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 03:14:00
|
1374. Rattati, Breach Plasma Cannons? plz. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Fizzer XCIV wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Damage per shot can't get too out of hand, primarily because damage modifiers are percentages and thus the amount of bonus damage increases substantially if direct damage increases.I mean at 3000 damage...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 02:10:00
|
1375. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Let me give some more constructive feed back. Logisitics and Support Vehicles - I love the concept of this in every sense of the word, adding new layers of vehicle and infantry interplay would be lovely. Personally I see these roles as MAV roles...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 02:05:00
|
1376. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Now on to your post. I like the concept of Black Ops and Logi Vehicles and I suppose at this stage we have to accept that if we want them they will have to be either in LAV or HAV form. Personally I'd love to see bother in the MAV as specialis...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 01:33:00
|
1377. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Sir Dukey wrote: Enforcer is suppose to be less tanked than the Standard Main Battle Tank but a lot more damage, Marauder is suppose to have a lot more tank ever the standard. I believe we can achieve that. Following eHP values of Enfo...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 00:45:00
|
1378. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
DarthJT5 wrote: What happened to the extra off rack mod for the enforcers? I rather liked that idea. I personally don't (though I accept that you and Pokey Dravon do and noting that the above numbers are all just and opinion designed to be ...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 00:16:00
|
1379. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: True, I like the increase to slots but decrease to base HP. Puts more emphasis on WHAT You fit on your hull, not just what your base hull has naturally. It's a philosophy I want to apply to LAVs as well because 1. Their slot...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.18 00:01:00
|
1380. Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I think the archetypes CCP Rattati has designed are fine in many respects. Some of his examples from EVE are a little iffy but get the point across, and while he kind of lacks the real world parallels to draw from it's very easy to provide exampl...
- by True Adamance - at 2014.12.17 23:38:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |