| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [20] 30 40 50 |
381. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Crickets are deafening. Nurf!!Nuuuurrrfff!!!!! TruthInFeedBack@CCP .com/support for all your QQ ticket needs
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.24 17:43:00
|
382. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Adipem Nothi wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: GalLogi scans aren't OP. Heavy/Logi blobs aren't either, unless you're not addressing them properly. In a game well-established on the premises of counters and counter-counters instead of see/point/s...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.24 17:33:00
|
383. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Adipem Nothi wrote: Aren't the Slayer GalScouts, with their completely undetectable profile signature at some point as equally OP as the Slayer CalScout, with its mind-numbing regen and hitbox capable of dancing throufh OBs once speedtanked? I...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.24 17:27:00
|
384. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
GalLogi scans aren't OP. Heavy/Logi blobs aren't either, unless you're not addressing them properly. In a game well-established on the premises of counters and counter-counters instead of see/point/shoot the fine difference can be easily forgot...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.24 16:37:00
|
385. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Mister Goo wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: I came here to try to solve a problem, not to play games with trolls. I don't know and don't care to know whatever it is you're getting at above. If you've something constructive to contribute, I'm all...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.23 00:24:00
|
386. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Meee One wrote: Ryanjr TUG wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Page 40 something wrote: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177251&find=unread Yeah. Because this conversation never happened and after it you didn...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.23 00:22:00
|
387. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Adipem Nothi wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Page 40 something wrote: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177251&find=unread Yeah. Because this conversation never happened and after it you didn't continue tryin...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.23 00:14:00
|
388. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Page 40 something wrote: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=177251&find=unread Yeah. Because this conversation never happened and after it you didn't continue trying to peddle the same debunked hooey. Truth...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.22 04:08:00
|
389. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
And I'm kind of amazed you'd entertain the subject at all considering that it stems from the input of a proven purveyor of false or otherwise misleading information. In here.
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.22 01:29:00
|
390. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Just because the thread isn't littered with blue tags doesn't mean no one worthwhile is listening, just that they haven't responded. Active scans are fine, GalLogi bonuses are fine and Scouts (by and large) are fine. Don't let this thread turn i...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.22 01:23:00
|
391. Add heat mechanics to the repair tool - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
@OP- No. @ Everyone naming off weapons that the Core outreps- No, mostly. A couple of the militia variants, with no prof and no mods, maybe. But all the rest, lolno.
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 22:04:00
|
392. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Meee One wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Ok! Have some tentative numbers for you. Assumption GA Logi bonus to Active Scanner Precision replaced by Active Scanner Cooldown. Active Scanner Overhaul 46 dB Scanners ---> 40dB: Commando beats ...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 19:31:00
|
393. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: what I'm wondering is how you guess from the dartboard what's undefended. You seem to assume a supernatural level of knowledge of district defense patterns. Nope. I'm assuming basic use of the starmap and reasonable in...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 19:08:00
|
394. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called ...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 18:42:00
|
395. CPM input request: Logistics & Support. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Adipem Nothi wrote: Ok! Have some tentative numbers for you. Assumption GA Logi bonus to Active Scanner Precision replaced by Active Scanner Cooldown. Active Scanner Overhaul 46 dB Scanners ---> 40dB: Commando beats w/1 cmp damp, Heavy...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 18:20:00
|
396. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
And for the billionth time, I'm not against raiding (I'm extremely pro almost any game expansion) but I am against ezmode auto-pub-queues being dressed up as PC training. We have those, they're called Faction WarFare.
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 17:33:00
|
397. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: If your district isn't being defended odds are you should loosen up the recruiting and bring in more people and allow them to participate in PC raid battles to train them for the real deal. Which will be where newer/sma...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.21 17:26:00
|
398. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: "Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raide...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.20 23:59:00
|
399. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
"Same risk" between raiders (who can choose the when and where of a conflict) and defenders (who will pay losses from their districts assets that they've worked to develop) implicitly states that raiders must possess some "thing" ( not their MCC c...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.20 21:08:00
|
400. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: No. All your demands will do is deter newer corps from participating entirely. It's not a compromise, you're pushing for raiding to be a zero-impact nonfactor, and bluntly it...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.20 21:04:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [20] 30 40 50 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |