Pages: [1] 2 |
1. Law in EVE - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
There are always rules where humans try to interact with each other. Sometimes they're obvious. Sometimes they're unwritten. However without rules we are not civilized. And if you jump like a lemming when the FC said "Hold on gate"... there will b...
- by Ptraci - at 2017.03.08 18:44:06
|
2. I'll just leave this here - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: who the hell suicide ganks with an implanted clone? That's not the point. The point is when your clone is killed you find yourself back in a station somewhere, not on grid next to your Orca and all the catalysts you ha...
- by Ptraci - at 2015.01.04 14:54:03
|
3. I'll just leave this here - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Daichi Yamato wrote: Ptraci wrote: Ralph King-Griffin wrote: no, pod them yourself, its hilarious. Don't get me wrong I'm not against ganking at all. But it should take a team effort. One lone player should not be able to, say, bring d...
- by Ptraci - at 2015.01.04 14:53:17
|
4. I'll just leave this here - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: no, pod them yourself, its hilarious. Don't get me wrong I'm not against ganking at all. But it should take a team effort. One lone player should not be able to, say, bring down a bowhead just by re-shipping over an...
- by Ptraci - at 2015.01.04 12:26:00
|
5. I'll just leave this here - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
So now that we've gotten rid of clone costs and the risk of losing skill points through not updating your clone, etc - CONCORD should pod people in high sec so that they risk their implants, too. After all if suicide is a choice, then suicide sh...
- by Ptraci - at 2015.01.04 12:17:58
|
6. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: To be quite frank, you didn't institute negative feedback. You instituted artificial caps. There is a big difference. The cap is already there, I haven't introduced it. Today the very real cap is dictated by har...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.08 14:02:00
|
7. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Velicitia wrote: Ptraci wrote: Velicitia wrote: what's with all the whining about TiDi lately? TiDi is not the perfect solution (CCP agrees). However it's a necessary evil (and significantly better than the pre-tidi guaranteed node death...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 19:00:00
|
8. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: To be frank, your suggestion is exploitable: Team A: lets set a trap... we'll put the station into RF with a bait group. Team B: There's a bait group attacking station. We'll Drop them and escalate. Team A Reinforc...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 18:56:00
|
9. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kagura Nikon wrote: The thing that is needed is GAME PLAY MECHANICS that make non massive operations more efficient thna a single massive battle!!! That's cute. My idea will kill EvE, and what EvE really needs is exactly what I am suggesti...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 18:37:00
|
10. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Qweasdy wrote: There are already problems with lag restricting entry into systems we don't need to introduce new artificial ones, think 6VDT, CFC went into that fight with a massive advantage because they got in first. N3/test couldn't bring th...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 17:00:00
|
11. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Velicitia wrote: what's with all the whining about TiDi lately? TiDi is not the perfect solution (CCP agrees). However it's a necessary evil (and significantly better than the pre-tidi guaranteed node death/lag/etc) until they finish the code ...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 16:10:00
|
12. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Samillian wrote: Ptraci wrote: Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: TL; DR And I care why? You talk about instancing. No one mentioned instancing. Go away, troll. I put it to you that any proposal that is to long winded for the majority...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 16:10:00
|
13. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote: TL; DR And I care why? You talk about instancing. No one mentioned instancing. Go away, troll.
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 15:17:00
|
14. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Maximus Aerelius wrote: From what I can gather you want CCP to dictate how a battle is won by creating "Mission Objectives". Yes. Because if you let players dictate a battle, what you will end up with, without fail, is a node crash. So inste...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 15:16:00
|
15. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Through player driven events, the initial fight at ABC could trigger an even BIGGER fight at DEF, and that is the whole idea of this system. People WANT to fight. But hard limits on the sever side will not allow people to fight in one giant furbal...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 12:23:00
|
16. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
This proposal assumes the following: 1. Players participate in fleet battles for two reasons: A. Strategic objectives (POS removal, Sov structure removal, station flipping, friendly asset protection, enemy asset destruction) must be met by allia...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 12:22:00
|
17. A proposal to fix server crashes and excessive "TiDi" through negative... - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Since players have demonstrated that they will live with a sub-optimal path when required to do so, especially when the alternative is not playing at all, then I propose a sub-optimal path that prevents the development of the single, massive furba...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.11.07 12:22:00
|
18. [Odyssey] Ship Resistance Bonuses - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
CCP Fozzie wrote: IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you feel strongly about this change, either liking or disliking it, you should vote for CSM 8 and tell your representatives how you feel. Why, when we can tell you directly? I mean this is the 21st cen...
- by Ptraci - at 2013.04.13 11:59:00
|
19. Give us Disco! - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Quack Mallard wrote: an extremely dangerous level 4 mission Rofl. You were joking, right?
- by Ptraci - at 2012.11.02 12:45:00
|
20. Warning about the "Jump" button - in Player Features and Ideas Discussion [original thread]
Necro posting ftw, huh? This issue has been resolved by CCP. You no longer jump into the next system when you log off.
- by Ptraci - at 2012.03.20 11:13:00
|
Pages: [1] 2 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |