| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 |
401. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
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's not contributing anything useful to the dis...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.20 19:24:00
|
402. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
PS Role variation is exactly that, variation. Variation which, based on function, determines what its essentials are. Function which, based on bonusing, is either maximised or not. Slot parity of Logis to Assaults I believe needlessly leans that ...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.13 00:14:00
|
403. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: But should variation between roles not be defined by its ability to fit the essentials and more so based around the Role bonuses to define the role? Even if you don't like the concept of matching the Logistics to the Assaul...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 23:44:00
|
404. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Varoth Drac wrote: Actually I believe Amarr logis only have 4 lows at proto, making only 7 mod slots. This follows the old Amarr assault trend of having less slots. It was agreed that this was silly and Amarr assaults got the same total slots a...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 23:14:00
|
405. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Yes, I'm aware that a couple patches back (as part of the greater overhaul) Assault frames were given their Logis layouts at Proto. My issue making that scheme the uniform standard down the line is to ...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 23:01:00
|
406. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I would much much rather they all had sidearms.
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 22:35:00
|
407. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Pokey Dravon wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Do NOT parrallel Logi slot progression to Assaults. Care to elaborate as to why you feel that way? EDIT: You do realize that Proto Assaults and Proto Logistics basically share the same slot layout...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 22:34:00
|
408. Logistics slot progression(still). - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Give my CalLogi a cpu buff and a sidearm. Do NOT parrallel Logi slot progression to Assaults.
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 21:31:00
|
409. Question about battle duration - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Well for one, 32v32 simply wont happen, system can't handle it. Secondly, are there win conditions? Direct contribution to planetary SOV by holding hack points. Which in turn adds or degrades syste...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.12 00:58:00
|
410. Question about battle duration - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
DO THIS, CCP!! and maybe make it more than 16v16 ( 32v 32 would be a good start)
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.11 23:43:00
|
411. Cal logi FW buff - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
bpo logi suits are garb relative to actual proto anyway. CalLogi got the shaft during the anti-slayerlogi nerfing period because of its popularity. Being Cal its got a stack of high slots slayers liked to fill with Damage Mods (pre-stacking pen...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.11 23:25:00
|
412. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Breakin Stuff wrote: 6v12 offers no tactical advantage to the raiding party and every advantage to the defenders. Correct. It is weighted towards the defenders, partially to address what Travis accurately descibed as "top-tier players" wh...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.11 23:02:00
|
413. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Travis Stanush wrote: Nothing was/ is going to stop top tier players from being key to success in MH as long as we are forced to use the 16 v 16 we can only hope that they increase the pool of active players in their corps to give a lar...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.11 22:11:00
|
414. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the ma...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.08 01:46:00
|
415. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the ma...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.08 01:26:00
|
416. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid de...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.07 17:58:00
|
417. A formal request of the Ratman. - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
I'd settle for being able to move them around after an RDV drops them off so they could be used to block access to areas or create steps to higher areas. o
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.07 01:52:00
|
418. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Of course they will. Especially if they risk almost nothing to do so and can do so at-will. I fully expect (based off the OP description) to spend the majority of my time fighting raiders (and raid defenders) who were just spanked off the district...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.06 23:18:00
|
419. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Radar R4D-47 wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: BTW- Every single one of those pillaging groups you describe was killed, dead never to to rob/****/pillage ever again ever, when caught or successfully opposed. Which I also proposed as a possible ...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.06 22:47:00
|
420. Sticky:[Feedback] Planetary Conquest Revisited - in Feedback/Requests [original thread]
Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: Travis Stanush wrote: el OPERATOR wrote: That isn't balanced, that a group can pick who to take and when and then attack and whoever happens to be there (unless its EVERYBODY who happens to b...
- by el OPERATOR - at 2015.02.06 22:44:00
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |