Pages: [1] 2 |
1. Upwell structures should consume "base" amounts of fuel - in Assembly Hall [original thread]
As stated by Clerical_terrors on reddit: Quote: It's personal ISK that's increasing, not corporate owned ISK. This would really affects the private ISK reserves of smaller corps who have people paying the logistics bill out of their pocket. It...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.17 17:25:37
|
2. Sticky:[Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Kenrailae wrote: Novor Drethan wrote: You're already paying more isk for faction ships and modules, so the question isn't whether they should be more expensive, but by how much. Barghests are 700m right now, and no one uses them. Increase ...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.09 00:45:28
|
3. Sticky:[Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Kenrailae wrote: Novor Drethan wrote: Romvex wrote: Querns wrote: T-B0NE wrote: So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.09 00:35:04
|
4. Sticky:[Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Romvex wrote: Querns wrote: T-B0NE wrote: So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC)....
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.09 00:06:39
|
5. Tech 3 Ships - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
JC Mieyli wrote: if you look at the spreadsheet in the that thread you can see it doesnt seem to be the direction theyre heading in anymore It really doesn't look that way at all. The Legion and Loki both have a propulsion subsystem that give...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.06 23:53:40
|
6. Tech 3 Ships - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
I have checked the focus group logs, and most of the people in the focus group are of the mentality that 3 > 2 > 1. The image I linked contradicts that mentality, so I'd like to know, preferably from one of the developers, if the image I li...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.06 18:34:46
|
7. Capital Ship Requirements - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
It's still plenty confusing. If flying a capital without Capital Ships to IV is a bad thing, then why not increase the requirements for Dreadnaughts? If it doesn't really matter, then why not decrease the requirements for Carriers and FAX to keep ...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.05 22:03:31
|
8. Capital Ship Requirements - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
I understand that. I guess my real question is why do Carriers require Capital Ships IV and not just Capital Ships III? In my mind, this is how it should work: Dreadnaughts, Carriers, and Force Auxiliaries should all have their own racial skil...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.05 21:32:58
|
9. Capital Ship Requirements - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
Okay, but why? What's the reasoning behind it being that way to begin with? Dreadnaughts and Carriers are both pretty similar in terms of strength as capitals, so why do Carriers require Capital Ships IV while Dreadnaughts only require Capital Shi...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.05 19:58:34
|
10. Capital Ship Requirements - in Ships and Modules [original thread]
Why do Dreadnaughts require only Capital Ships III while Force Auxiliaries and Carriers require Capital Ships IV? Aren't Dreadnaughts, Force Auxiliaries, and Carriers all on the same level as far as capital ships go? And why do Force Auxiliaries ...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.05 18:26:26
|
11. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Omnathious Deninard wrote: Quote: [18:50] ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP ...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.03 13:51:42
|
12. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in som...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.03 12:14:59
|
13. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Jeremiah Saken wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On t...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.06.02 16:34:03
|
14. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Jeremiah Saken wrote: Your own words: Novor Drethan wrote: T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. + SP loss. You already answer your own question. T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts. B...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 17:28:38
|
15. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Jeremiah Saken wrote: Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles. Why should it take more to counter T3Cs when they're providing the role of Force Recons than it takes to counter F...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 16:50:36
|
16. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Jeremiah Saken wrote: So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway. I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There s...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 16:02:19
|
17. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Noxisia Arkana wrote: Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balan...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 15:46:39
|
18. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Noxisia Arkana wrote: Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balan...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 15:29:21
|
19. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Jeremiah Saken wrote: We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf. SP loss only matters if you lose the s...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 10:14:33
|
20. Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread - in Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center [original thread]
Jeremiah Saken wrote: 1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. If you buy a HIC, you're stuck wit...
- by Novor Drethan - at 2017.05.31 09:14:21
|
Pages: [1] 2 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |