Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
StevieTopSiders
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
109
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:44:00 -
[631] - Quote
The 1 minute aggression timer nerfs:
-On-grid Command Ships -Command Ships chilling on gates -Command Ships chilling on station
If two and three are really problems, just attack the link ships on statoin/gate, and they will have to dock or jump, dropping their bonuses? |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
761
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 08:01:00 -
[632] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones. The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Fozzie im gonna throw an idea out there for you... What if you made the weapons timer gor activating links similar to the logistic ships getting timer when they rep someone who is agressed... By this i mean that the link ship would only get agression if someone in fleet is agressed... And it would follow the timer of the guy with the longest agression... I am sure it would be hard to code... But it would be fair and balanced... Remote support=shared agression Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Totured Veracity
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 09:27:00 -
[633] - Quote
Quote:We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. Don't turn command proc's into rigs. That does not make sense at all, from any point of view. Better make them a module which can be fit either into med or low slot. |
Sigras
Conglomo
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:41:00 -
[634] - Quote
Evestriker wrote:Yet another reason for a lot of peeps the be peeved CCP
Might wanna concider the time and Money people have invested in skilling leadership to have it cut in half or even reduced is going to be a whip on the Private parts to a lot of people. The fact that people trained a long time for something is not a valid reason to keep it overpowered. As someone with 14 million in leadership, i can tell you that gang links in their current state are totally broken.
Evestriker wrote:Everyone Knows what boosts there are if they want to invade a area they need to be prepared and compensate that into their assault.
The people who complain are the ones who either don't have or just fail in epic tactics. The problem is that currently gang links cannot be countered, they can only be nullified by bringing your own gang booster in order to bring you back up on an even playing field.
This is bad game design. if X is the only counter to X than everyone ends up just having to have X; it was the problem with speed back in 2007 it was the problem with super capitals before they were nerfed, and it is currently the problem with gang boosts.
When boosters are forced on grid, they will provide a bunch of options, decisions, tactics and strategies to each side making them a great addition to New Eden.
Evestriker wrote:If it aint broke CCP don't fix it , no offence but seriously focus more on the important stuff like memory dump issues Or even alliance member access to POS modules like Corp hanger arrays and storage areas, having just the ship maintanace array as only access is rather ridiculous. I agree, if it aint brok dont fix it, unfortunately, gang boosts in their current incarnation are totally broken.
Also, anyone can edit numbers in a database and tweak with bonuses; rewriting somebody else's back end server net code is something entirely different. Fozzie and Rise working on balance takes nothing away from the other endeavors, and if they werent working on balance, Id be willing to bet they also wouldnt be working on server code. |
Sukur
Shimai of New Eden
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:56:00 -
[635] - Quote
Why dont you just turn links to a targeted "weapon"?, similar to logistics.
That would end "afk safespot linking" wich is a terrible game mechanic. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
833
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:12:00 -
[636] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. Making Command Processors into a rig won't help much, people will still have rigged link ships running excessive link. A T3 could fit three link rigs for four links, a CS could fit two rigs for five links. It doesn't really change anything much from today.
Unless, of course, you were to fiddle with the rig calibration to limit the number that could be fitted to one. That would work well, and would probably be a more flexible solution than the easy option of removing Command Processors altogether. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:37:00 -
[637] - Quote
Give them Support Timer a seperate form for logis and CS which alowed to Jump trough gates but dont let dem Dock into Stations.
Dont bother roaming if he is trying to escape throught a gate hes to slow to avoid being catched on the other side. Maybe even he gets trapped in a gatecamp if the enemys are smart enough.
And the Fleet lost their Boost anyway... |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3248
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:41:00 -
[638] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We want to deal with several problems connected with command processors. They allow people to fit too many links on an alt gang booster, and they imbalance shield ships compared to armor fits. I like the idea of making them a rig, but there's still a lot of details to figure out so this won't be in 1.1. Making Command Processors into a rig won't help much, people will still have rigged link ships running excessive link. A T3 could fit three link rigs for four links, a CS could fit two rigs for five links. It doesn't really change anything much from today. Unless, of course, you were to fiddle with the rig calibration to limit the number that could be fitted to one. That would work well, and would probably be a more flexible solution than the easy option of removing Command Processors altogether.
It could cause some fitting issues with CPU, might not be so easy to make a T3 hard to probe.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:43:00 -
[639] - Quote
Oh and i would love to see that your fleet get a "Debuff" when the Booster got killed while boosting (some tweaks may needed).
So losing a Boosting Ship should really a punishment. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1054
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:22:00 -
[640] - Quote
Sukur wrote:Why dont you just turn links to a targeted "weapon"?, similar to logistics.
That would end "afk safespot linking" wich is a terrible game mechanic.
This would be great. I think this is what chatgris recomended. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1054
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:23:00 -
[641] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.
I'm reposting part of what I said in warfaire and tactics here so that perhaps a dev will read this and understand why so many players hate ogbs.
There are a few reasons why ccp's refusal to deal with ogbs= god mode makes it much easier to do other things with my time. These problems just aren't present from implants or drugs.
1) AltBoosters = Pay to win: Implants and boosters cost isk. (In game currency) They do not require the pay out of real money. Paying for a second account to sit in safe spot in a booster ship does cost real money. Accordingly no matter how much experience I have gained in the market or other isk making in eve that won't matter. I need to pay the extra 15 dollars to get god mode.
I have lots of isk due to learning how to play the game. This has lead to me having 4 clones with pirate implants one set with improved learning implants and another with hg talons. All have various other implants for slots 7-10. I have made as much money from experimenting/learning drugs in eve as i have lost from using them. The ingame economy is a huge boon to eve and learning how to "play" it is a big part of the game.
Play to win with a booster alt pretty much destroys that. That bothers me but I have to say that the extra 15 dollars a month is not in itself prohibitive for me. The other problem is:
2) Alt boosters make the game no fun to play. I think there are 2 general reasons for this.
A) It ruins the immersion. I am not like the mittani where I forget who I am in real life and start thinking I am cearain. But when I am flying around space I do have at least some modicum of immersion that I am a character in a game flying a spaceship. However when i am multiboxing 2 different characters that is completely shot. Completely shot. I am then not a character in a game flying a spaceship, I am a nerd upstairs trying to outspreadsheet other nerds.
B) There is an important difference between a game being challenging and a game just being tedious. Booster alts do not make eve challenging they make it tedious. Finding safespots in all the systems and dragging an alt around everywhere on your roam is not challenging. Any cretin can do that. But it is tedious. Is eve supposed to always be won by the person who can withstand the most tedium?
Drugs and implants are bought with ingame currency and thus are balanced by that currency. If you think implants are risk free enough to spend 2.5 billion on a set, ok. use them. I do in low sec and think getting a set should be a goal of new low sec pvpers. Same if you think spending 5 mill isk on a booster that last up to an hour. Having isk to use is part of the game. People *learn* how to make/save isk in eve its a great part of the single shard game and economy.
Using implants and drugs doesn't make the game tedious and it doesn't ruin the immersion of the game either. Booster alts do both. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:38:00 -
[642] - Quote
If you put Commands on grid the command processors mods that allow a forth link are going to be armor tanked CS only mods.
1 mid for propulsion 1 mid for cap injector 3/4 slots for tank on shield cs
1 mid for a cp thats 2/3 slots for tank , not viable.
Armor tanked CS dont have to give up there tanking lows for anything atm.
Move CP to low slot.
|
Nig C
Project Stealth Squad The Initiative.
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 20:29:00 -
[643] - Quote
Hoi there,
sorry I didn't read up 32 pages and maybe someone else has suggested this already, but...
As I am me and only me, yes... I am one of those Players aren't have an alt and as I am cross trained to all four races, especial on SubCapS I do have a suggestion, because I love to fly CmdShips as Booster, especially on Grid...
atm, all Mindlink's have Implant Slot 10, except Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink(Slot 9). So, if I want to fly as Fleet Booster in several Doctrines, I have to trash one Link against the other. This is a bit annoying.
If the Mindlink's of the different group's have different slot's, yes, my clone will get expensive, but will not cost as much as to trash the Mindlink to fly an other Doctrine.
regards, NigC
ps. Yes, we single Account-Pilot's are still alive! |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
1041
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:08:00 -
[644] - Quote
Nig C wrote:
If the Mindlink's of the different group's have different slot's, yes, my clone will get expensive, but will not cost as much as to trash the Mindlink to fly an other Doctrine.
Jump clones, bro. They're even going to give you access to five more of them soon. Rifterlings Corporation is now recruiting pilots for lowsec solo & small gang PvP. Visit our website at www.rifterlings.com or join our in game channel weflyrifters to speak to a recruiter. |
Mingja
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:20:00 -
[645] - Quote
the easiest fix for links would've been to make them light a spot in space like cynos do.
That way, most problems would solve at once - the booster would have to be active and everybody else could just kill it.
But it's good that CCP doesn't take the easy route, and we all have to wait for a year or so till they do a real fix..... |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:02:00 -
[646] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill. I'm reposting part of what I said in warfaire and tactics here so that perhaps a dev will read this and understand why so many players hate ogbs. There are a few reasons why ccp's refusal to deal with ogbs= god mode makes it much easier to do other things with my time. These problems just aren't present from implants or drugs. 1) AltBoosters = Pay to win: Implants and boosters cost isk. (In game currency) They do not require the pay out of real money. Paying for a second account to sit in safe spot in a booster ship does cost real money. Accordingly no matter how much experience I have gained in the market or other isk making in eve that won't matter. I need to pay the extra 15 dollars to get god mode. I have lots of isk due to learning how to play the game. This has lead to me having 4 clones with pirate implants one set with improved learning implants and another with hg talons. All have various other implants for slots 7-10. I have made as much money from experimenting/learning drugs in eve as i have lost from using them. The ingame economy is a huge boon to eve and learning how to "play" it is a big part of the game. Play to win with a booster alt pretty much destroys that. That bothers me but I have to say that the extra 15 dollars a month is not in itself prohibitive for me. The other problem is: 2) Alt boosters make the game no fun to play. I think there are 2 general reasons for this. A) It ruins the immersion. I am not like the mittani where I forget who I am in real life and start thinking I am cearain. But when I am flying around space I do have at least some modicum of immersion that I am a character in a game flying a spaceship. However when i am multiboxing 2 different characters that is completely shot. Completely shot. I am then not a character in a game flying a spaceship, I am a nerd upstairs trying to outspreadsheet other nerds. B) There is an important difference between a game being challenging and a game just being tedious. Booster alts do not make eve challenging they make it tedious. Finding safespots in all the systems and dragging an alt around everywhere on your roam is not challenging. Any cretin can do that. But it is tedious. Is eve supposed to always be won by the person who can withstand the most tedium? Drugs and implants are bought with ingame currency and thus are balanced by that currency. If you think implants are risk free to spend 2.5 billion on a set, ok. use them. I do in low sec and think getting a set should be a goal of new low sec pvpers. Same if you think spending 5 mill isk on a booster that last up to an hour. Having isk to use is part of the game. People *learn* how to make/save isk in eve its a great part of the single shard game and economy. Using implants and drugs doesn't make the game tedious and it doesn't ruin the immersion of the game either. Booster alts do both.
Buy Plex, swallow some Pills -> Pay2Win
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 06:53:00 -
[647] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:If you put Commands on grid the command processors mods that allow a forth link are going to be armor tanked CS only mods.
Why people even need ship with 8 links?
Quote:Move CP to low slot.
So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:00:00 -
[648] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:09:00 -
[649] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say.
Do you mean something like this?
[Damnation, Boost]
Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I
10MN Microwarpdrive II Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Faint Warp Disruptor I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I
Information Warfare Link - Recon Operation II Information Warfare Link - Electronic Superiority II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:40:00 -
[650] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say. Do you mean something like this? [Damnation, Boost] Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I 10MN Microwarpdrive II Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Faint Warp Disruptor I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Information Warfare Link - Recon Operation II Information Warfare Link - Electronic Superiority II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I since you can't do math very well let me show you something:
6cp + 3 role bonus = 9 - 7 gang links = 2 unused cp
So let's ditch those 2 extra cp and throw on 2 T2 1600mm plates, and what do we get? 100k+ easily.
You have to use every available slot and module to even get a tank like that. And to boot the damnation also has free utility slots. Where shields don't have that luxury (but I'm used to it so that's not what I'm whining about).
Even with only two lows for tank the damnation has better tank than a claymore can dream of and is comparable to a vulture.
TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin' |
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:41:00 -
[651] - Quote
Rowells wrote:TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin'
But it could cause issues: Sleipnir low dps Nighthawk low dps Absolution low dps + paper thin tank Last but not least: nerf to Gallente tank and dps |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:58:00 -
[652] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin' But it could cause issues: Sleipnir low dps Nighthawk low dps Absolution low dps + paper thin tank Last but not least: nerf to Gallente tank and dps Yes they would. But that's a choice you make as booster. Do I need another dps or more boosts? Which is my priority?
And while I've been exclusively talking about the damnation, yes the absolute would be paper thin and yes the gallente would get the short end of the stick (even though I mentioned the gallente CS poor condition). And this is also assuming everyone fits the 6 cp you fitted earlier.
As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:02:00 -
[653] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Dav Varan wrote:If you put Commands on grid the command processors mods that allow a forth link are going to be armor tanked CS only mods. Why people even need ship with 8 links? Quote:Move CP to low slot. So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority!
Duffas , did you even read the post.
Theres too much presure on mids for Shield Tanks already.
If its on grid it needs injector and prop mod.
so with 1 CP on low that 2 slots lost from shield tanks only 1 from armor. for a 4 link on grid booster.
Thats better than the current situation 3 slots lost from shield tanks and none from armor.
CP needs to be low slot. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:10:00 -
[654] - Quote
Rowells wrote:As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all.
Damnation with only two low slots used for tank would still be paper thin compared to Claymore/Vulture.
Claymore: 101k Vulture: 114k Damnation: 97k |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:39:00 -
[655] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all. Damnation with only two low slots used for tank would still be paper thin compared to Claymore/Vulture. Claymore: 101k Vulture: 114k Damnation: 97k Seeing as there's only a 4k difference between the claymore and damnation with a 3 slot (4 if you used a damage control) and a 20K difference with the same slot difference as the claymore I would say "paper-thin compared to" isn't exactly a fitting term for such a close comparison.
The second you try to fit the claymore or vulture similar to how you fit the damnation (using current mid-slot cp), it's a much different story. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7337
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:31:00 -
[656] - Quote
Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:37:00 -
[657] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
Thank goodness for that, Fozzie.
Just to record my opinion in full:
1) Totally agree with On Grid Boosting; our gangs have already made the change
2) 1 min weapons timer should never be implemented. It means that jumping a gate while de-aggressing means sacrificing the booster ship or half the gang; you don't make us do this with Logi so you shouldn't with Boosts? Needs to be deferred timer a la Logi or nothing.
3) Before eliminating off-grid boosting altogether (which I am in favour of) Tech 3's need to be able to fit 3 link modules by default, so they can actually have a tank!
4) If 3 is implemented, you can actually consider dropping Command Processors altogether. Although the Rig idea is nice. |
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:40:00 -
[658] - Quote
If the 3 links for Tech 3's is Viable, would be great if that made the 1.1 patch too. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
441
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:41:00 -
[659] - Quote
JD No7 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it. Thank goodness for that, Fozzie. Just to record my opinion in full: 1) Totally agree with On Grid Boosting; our gangs have already made the change 2) 1 min weapons timer should never be implemented. It means that jumping a gate while de-aggressing means sacrificing the booster ship or half the gang; you don't make us do this with Logi so you shouldn't with Boosts? Needs to be deferred timer a la Logi or nothing. 3) Before eliminating off-grid boosting altogether (which I am in favour of) Tech 3's need to be able to fit 3 link modules by default, so they can actually have a tank! 4) If 3 is implemented, you can actually consider dropping Command Processors altogether. Although the Rig idea is nice.
It would be simple if T3's and CS had a unmodifiable hard set limit of 3 warfare links.. then move Command processors to a rig slot for T1 bc's/Navy bc's to use .. but would it have a drawback? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 11:49:00 -
[660] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys, I want to make it clear that the weapons timer for links is not for Odyssey 1.1. It's a tool we have in our back pocket for if it ends up being needed. I won't rule out using it depending on how things go in the future, but we're also not dead set on enabling it.
What do you mean if? It is needed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |