Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Hockenheim
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:26:00 -
[241]
1) Nighthawk. 5 medslots is not enough for shield-tanking. Also need to increase its powergrid. 2) Citadel torpedoes. Their missile velocity is too slow. 3) Capacitor consumption of railguns. Rokh have more problems with capa than apoc, but it has reloadig time and consumable ammo. 4) Guristas ships. They are useless atm. 5) Raptor. Can't fit it with just mwd + 3x125mm railguns without modules boosting PG. Do something with its powergrid. 6) Carriers. I suggest to rename "carriers" to "jump logistic ships" or "capital logistics".
|
whizzo140
Active Exploration Organisation
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:39:00 -
[242]
1. ROCKETS 2. LVL 4's
|
Myz Toyou
Ministry of Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:43:00 -
[243]
1) Large Projectiles - autocannons falloff concept of dictating range falls apart at BS level, artillery is truly gimped
2) Recons (minmatar/gallente mostly)
3) Rockets lol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [gold]Your signature image exceeds the maximum allo |
Jade TX
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:51:00 -
[244]
Edited by: Jade TX on 17/04/2009 19:56:23 Edited by: Jade TX on 17/04/2009 19:52:15
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h)
2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...)
3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used)
If you want risk do a level 5 mission. Or go and croke over and pop in your ship in some W-Space with billions worth in implants getting stuck in some W-Space please would ya. Highsec whine whine whine...
Level 1 is standard pay. L2 is double pay of level 1. L3 double level 2. L4 double level 3. L5 double level 4.
Missions scale with skill as well.
Its all about social skills and agent quality. It takes atleast 6 months of skills to solo a level 4 mission. Some of the highest quality missions require near maxed tanking skills. Enemies abound 5 for example. Or the AE bonus room, worlds collide final room. Apperently you don't do many missions.
I do navy low sec level 4's and 5's because of the higher quality and payouts in lowsec. Much higher then highsec.
Btw T1 is crap. Nothing special about T1. Thats why its crap. You don't know what your talking about. Your just going to have to deal with it. Level 4's will never get more difficult then they already are. CCP has no plans to change them. Only level 4's around epic arcs.
If your not having any difficulty doing level 4's then its time go to to level 5's. Your skill is too high for level 4's to be challanging anymore so you need to do level 5's. Thats why there are level 5's. Then W-Space is like level 6 missions. lol Go there if you really want to die... specially in a 0.0 system so you get a J6 WH or something.
CCP doesn't control eve's economy, the players do. Its the players fault not ccp's. The player is sipose to deside how much something is in eve. CCP doesn't tell them how much something is worth. One regain can be 50% lower or 1000% higher then the other.
Has nothing to do with mission level. Has everything to do with the players have control of T1 prices. End of story.
|
torpedan
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:54:00 -
[245]
POS logistics, if you need an explination for this odds are you would not understand anyways.
Large Projectile/Min BS's.
Risk/Effort vs Reward system, people have high sec mission running alts for a reason.
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:57:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Jade TX
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:42:15 Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 17/04/2009 09:37:32 1. High Sec lvl 4 missions (needs to be adressed, way too much profit for no risk, this ruins so many other activities as they cannot compete in ish/h and risk vs reward. Also the loot from missions screws mining. PLUS it injects too much isk into the economy, making things too expensive so that you cannot compete with the activities that earns you less isk/h)
2. Projectile Artillery (cause everyone says they suck...)
3. Tech1 Mods (who uses tech1 stuff apart for invention? It simply has no use anymore imho, as even noobs can afford named stuff and tech2 mods are ridiculously low in terms of skill requirements. Though I guess some database mining would be needed to prove that tech1 is still used)
If you want risk do a level 5 mission. Or go and croke over and pop in your ship in some W-Space with billions worth in implants getting stuck in some W-Space please would ya. Highsec whine whine whine...
Level 1 is standard pay. L2 is double pay of level 1. L3 double level 2. L4 double level 3. L5 double level 4.
Its all about social skills and agent quality. It takes atleast 6 months of skills to solo a level 4 mission. Some of the highest quality missions require near maxed tanking skills. Enemies abound 5 for example. Or the AE bonus room, worlds collide final room. Apperently you don't do many missions.
I do navy low sec level 4's and 5's because of the higher quality and payouts in lowsec. Much higher then highsec.
Btw T1 is crap. Nothing special about T1. Thats why its crap. You don't know what your talking about. Your just going to have to deal with it. Level 4's will never get more difficult then they already are. CCP has no plans to change them. Only level 4's around epic arcs.
CCP doesn't control eve's economy, the players do. Its the players fault not ccp's. The player is sipose to deside how much something is in eve. CCP doesn't tell them how much something is worth. One regain can be 50% lower or 1000% higher then the other.
Has nothing to do with mission level. Has everything to do with the players have control of T1 prices. End of story.
CCP has massive influence on that economy. Case in point? When they made huge changes to the difficulty of level 4 missions (before we had level 5's), taking what was a group effort and making it soloable in a battleship to players WELL under that suggested six month limit of yours.
Another time CCP massively effected our economy was when the redid the loot reprocessing tables, increasing the amount of mid-range and high-end ore. Prices plumeted, because all of a sudden all that worthless loot in missions that most didn't even bother picking up was being bought by the thousands by industrialists who then reprocessed them. This move also happened to cause many industry corps to leave losec in favor of hisec (where they could mine the still valuable, mass quantity low-end ores). When they moved out, all the combat corps that they used to hire moved out, pirates had free reign, and mission runners were slaughtered by the hundreds. In one move, CCP systematically caused the collapse of losec for anything more than pirating.
Fact is, mission running has a HUGE impact on this game. Or did you not know that most of those mega-alliances have huge portions of their corps living in hisec and running missions in order to fund their ship losses? This practice also helps keep those corporations in power (barring internal issues, ala BOB) and is one more reason why it's so hard to move out there.
It's not like a mission runner is intending to hurt anyone. But in EvE, everyone effects everyone else, whether they know it or not.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------|||-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
|
TheNewEclipse
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:03:00 -
[247]
nerf level 4 mission theres to much profit and not enuf risk fix missiles the last missile nerf basically made caldari useless for pvp aside from ecm. peak dps and tracking of blasters is to low compared to other races
|
n0thing
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:04:00 -
[248]
1. Command Ships, outclassed in most cases. Could use slight altering in agility/tankability/damage ability. Should be worth thier sheer price tags and skill reqs.
2. Null sec systems that are 2 jumps from empire >=0.5 gate shouldnt allow outposts nor sov claims. Keep them chokepoints with general warfare and camps. Because of random alliances stick outposts in null-sec entry systems, the chokepoints become extinct and said alliance gains ultimate control over travel routes. Doesnt promote pvp, doesnt promote deep space exploring as major part of ppl cant get in, doesnt promote anything but boredom.
3. Deal somehow with EVE underdog ships: Ferox/Lachnesis and so on. Give them to do something that others cant already.
---
|
Von Kleist
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:06:00 -
[249]
1.) Modules. I think that if you started balance issues by fixing the modules, the hulls that use them may end up to be just fine. At this time, you have nerfed so many into being useless, that if the modules were corrected that could be enough. For instance, nos, target painters, rsd's, and half of the passive shield tanking modules are not worth putting on the ships that were designed to use them. Also, some of the speed mod and rig stacking penalties seem overly severe. I wasn't one to do the whole nano thing in the day, but the speed difference between what i can get out of a t1 frigate and an interceptor should be a little larger than 1000mps. A 25kps inty is too much, but a 7k with great skills, and expensive fit isn't, or 10 with hg snakes?
2.) Ships. Command ships are across the board not worth the money or the training time for bc5. They all need help specific to their ship, and should be advantageous enough to merit the 3-400 mil loss inflicted to the wallet when the ship goes down. Arazu's could be fixed by adjusting the rsd's, and thus would be fine as they are. Rapiers could use a more extreme web bonus to bring back into line the value of the ship with other recons. Pilgrim's I haven't flown so don't know much about them, but assuming they need a little help im sure. Black Ops bses you made quite some time ago. They entered the game as a useless pile of garbage and so far they are a useless pile of garbage with a bigger cargo hold. The sin is the most pitiful of all, and is a good example of whoever thought up and created this monstrosity doesn't play the game, or at the least doesn't know how to play it well.
3.) Game development and balancing. Just a suggestion, but maybe get some development input from players that have extensively used the ships or similar ships that you are trying to develop or balance properly. If you are to be doing work on the arazu for instance, do a little research on players and find a few of them that have 200 kill/lossmails in one. Get some input from them about how they are used, what they would want to change, etc. and you will have a more realistic idea of what role these ships play in the game. The 'close in brawler' ecm boat with weapon bonuses per level is a good example of developers pulling stupid ideas out of their respective asses and forcing ships into being used in ways they aren't.
This thread is a good start in this regard, but you're going to have a lot of input from people that don't know what they're talking about spewing crap all over the thread, and then you guys are going to have to sift through it all to find anything of worth. Thanks for attempting to get our input on this though.
|
Alkeena
Gallente Dynamic Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:10:00 -
[250]
Edited by: Alkeena on 17/04/2009 20:17:19 1) Scanner deficiencies: There has been a huge proliferation of cloaking ships with no effective counter. I'm all for force multipliers and the ability of highly specialized and skilled gangs to do a fair bit of damage to the enemy, however the ability to selectively gank then cloak with absolute impunity is worrisome. This isn't too great of a concern in k-space, w-space is an entirely different matter however. Without local it is literally impossible to have any inkling whatsoever that you're about to be ganked until you are. I rather like the local mechanics of wspace so I'd just like some fix that at least gives you vague idea that there may be a gank squad around.
2) Blasters really have been hurt a lot--they don't do nearly enough damage to compensate for all of their shortcomings these days with the web nerf, huge gates (more distance to cover), and the ability to end up stranded w/o a MWD from scrams. Deimos is broken too, and not just because of blasters.
3) Damps are worthless, utterly and completely. They were admitably overpowered before but the nerfs went entirely too far--just look at the going rate of a Lachesis for evidence of this, it's almost insurable >.>
|
|
Ravcharas
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:10:00 -
[251]
1. Assault frigates fourth bonus. 2. Different size rigs. 3. Tech 3 frigates.
|
Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:12:00 -
[252]
1 sov mechanics the pos bashing is incredibly boring, but the moment your invading space the defenders pos spamm the entire system , if not all station systems , meaning so much pos bashing that its impossible to get rid of all the towers , making taking systems incredibly hard and furstrating as long as one has the isk to continue towerspamming
2 assault frigates need love
3 just going to say it in advance , t3 is overpowered if it ever comes down to 150-200 m pricetags. they stole my sig :'( |
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:12:00 -
[253]
1. Faction ships 2. Tiering 3. uniform scaling of gun stats outdated?!
1.Need an overhaul. I think it was planned for empyrean age but apparently got dropped. Look at Navy Omen, Phantasm, Nightmare for examples of what awesome fun could ensue. Some need mostly fitting buffs others could do with a complete rework like you did with the Sansha (?) ships.
2.Do away with it. "not better but different" has it all right but less fitting, hp and slots often means just plain worse.
3. I think some dev once made a post about the great pulse laser nerf (years ago). He explained (iirc) that the ranges/dmg mods/rofs etc. basically are scaled equally between size. I.e. if there is a problem with the range of large pulses that same problem exists for med and small guns too. By that logic the solution (nerfing pulse range in that case) is applied equally to all classes.
This needs a paradigm change imho. I.e. BS are extremely immobile which means more time to make use of your range advantage. Thus its not necessarily a good idea to give them the same (relative) advantage over say blasters that they have at the cruiser level.
Compare how large acs are considered rather weak where as med acs are spot on. See how everyone complains about large blasters where small blasters are great. Coincidence? I think not.
I think the average velocity of a ship class should be taken into account when balancing weapon range. Likewise it could be applied to tracking and other factors like average hp of ship class could be taken into account for alpha strike or dps.
Otherwise you will always break something when you fix something else. Note that this does not necessarily mean the blurring of racial advantages/playstyles but rather to ensure that the differences are distinct and well scaled along the different sizes. --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Nomad Ignatius
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:14:00 -
[254]
1. ALL WEAPONS Complaints all around here. Autocannons and Blasters seem to have it the worst. Lasers and Missiles seem to have some issues. Look at player feedback and see if they can be restored to what they should be without creating major game issues. A few small tweaks to each system would really help.
2. Destroyers Destroyers are flat broken but they make great salvage boats; interdictors seem pretty screwed as well. Consider some buffs and redefinition here or . . .
3. Fill out the half-way ships Consider adding: destryoers (1-2 per race), BCs (1 would be perfect), Command ships (1 as well). Maybe refine roles a bit more. Maybe do something unusual for each race with some of these. An Amarr tackler, Mini tanker, Caldari close range DPS, Gallante EWar, etc. This would make gameplay much more interesting at earlier levels for many players and provide new tactics and counters for the hold hats.
|
Silverace
NailorTech Industries Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:16:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Silverace on 17/04/2009 20:16:42 1. The amount of minerals in the economy from non-mining (drone rats, reprocessing regular loot from missions/ratting) is too high. At the very least, high-end minerals such as Morphite, Zydrine and Megacyte should only be available from 0.0 asteroids.
2. lvl 4 missions are too profitable
3. Insurance, it should be removed.
|
Squeegie
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:18:00 -
[256]
1. change level 4 mission people are making to much isk off these with little or no risk to themselves. 2. make tech II ammo better. Tech II short range ammo is useless as faction versions are better dps without the downfalls of t2 ammo. 3. Missles are useless in pvp any more and the top dps and tracking on blaster dont do enuf for caldari ships since they mostly just get optimal range bonus's because of this the Phoenix is basically useless any more as anything moving more than 50m/s take very little dmg from ur missiles and can be speed tanked by other capitals. this dosent really fit as caldari are supose to be more warlike as their bio says.
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:27:00 -
[257]
Edited by: darkmancer on 17/04/2009 20:29:14 1. Tanks,
Give shield tanks access to more med slots without overpowering shield tanks, and boost active tanks vs passive.
2. Ammo
None extremes ammo needs rebalancing eg. scorch & multifrequency used **** loads - who uses microwave?? Scorch & multifreqency do not need nerfing. Microwave needs buffing. This applies to all turrets & drones.
Rockets, precision missiles, cruise, and Citadel torpedos need looking at. Citadels especially they over no real advantages in a cap v cap or a cap v fleet fight, thats before you relise alot simply won't reach the target, also could we have a long range varient like heavy missile vs HAM.
3. Hybred, Caldari, Gallente. Gallente using rails? Caldari with blasters? --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Major Reach
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:29:00 -
[258]
1: Blasters need a fix 2: Faction Warfare needs a fix 3: Insurance needs a nerf
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:33:00 -
[259]
People who are more wealthy than me should be broke, and I should be more wealthy.
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------|||-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
|
Tessen
Stellar Tide
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:36:00 -
[260]
1) Ewar balance : - ECM is frustrating for victim (jamed = no play) and overpowered relative to other forms of Ewar. This includes ECM drones. - Gallente Dampener need litle more Love. - Painter need more optimal, minmatar specialised web ship more web efficiency (75% efficiency with Reconship skill at lvl 5 for a T2 web, all other ships remain at 60%) - Web drone are to big requier too much Bandwith : keep the volume to 25m3 but reduce BW to 10Mbit/s
2) Ammo efficiency : - T2 : remove negative effect or at least make them non cumulative, - rockets : too weak, - Arty : weak dps, give more "cargo" to arty guns, - defenters : launcher with Defenders should be perma activated even if no target available (incoming missile) so long you dont switch off the laucher. A defender should be launch as soon as an incoming missile is detected. A defender should run to his target as soon as launched : no straight forward for a sec before runing to the missile. A defender should be able to one shot any missile, 2 defenders for any torp (including citadel). - Citadel Torp : should not be easily destroyed with Smart bombs
3) FW balance - Controling a system or not have almost no consequence, to long before sov change, advantage when playing just after DT. - A milicia should not accept corp with pirates shouting at friendly milician or friendly noob corp pilots in the same faction. Ideas for a complete Bounty Hunter profession sytem. |
|
Unbowed Ash
Gallente Ad Astra Vexillum Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:40:00 -
[261]
1) Hybrid turrets - need boost. Perhaps wider range of ammo like minmatar
2) Command ships need a boost
3) Inferior armor tank compared to shield tank
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:44:00 -
[262]
1) Gallente T2 ships: Lets face it, they are pretty terrible when compared to the other races T2 ships. Gallante has arguably the worst HACs, the worst hictor, the worst dictor, pretty cruddy recons, and the list goes on.
2) Naglfar: This thing really needs fixed. The simplest fix is to allow it to choose it's weapons. Give it 3 turret and 3 missile hard points, and four highs just like all the other Dreads. And make up your mind on whether it's armor or shield tanked. This whole "lol flexibility" doctrine doesn't work with a ship as specialized as a Dreadnought.
3) Minmatar ships larger than a cruiser and their associated guns: Yes, high alpha strike is great, but it doesn't make up for the fact that Minmatar battleships are pretty terrible, as are large T2 projectiles. The Rokh, Megathron and Apocalypse are better snipers than the Tempest in every conceivable way. I have zero reason to train my Minmatar character past HAC's to be quite frank, and even if I did, I would cross train him in to Caldari or Amarr.
|
Adetia
Minmatar Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:49:00 -
[263]
1) Large projectiles, and artillery in general. Clip size, missing damage on ammo, falloff mechanics. 2) Cloaks on non-cloaking ships. Provides way too much protection. All you have to do is warp to a safe spot and cloak to be untouchable with very little drawback.
3) Logging off to avoid combat. Aggression timers should continue through multiple systems and the log off, log on, log off tactic for a safe spot when logging on needs to be fixed. |
Fish Mittens
Minmatar 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:11:00 -
[264]
1: Minmatar BS / Recons / Capitals
2: ECM, Falcon is still overpowered, boost ECCM
3: Cloaking Battleships / capitals, give us probes to scan them down
|
Frothgar
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:11:00 -
[265]
#1 Can't say this enough. Moon mining. So many of these do-nothing alliances generate hundereds of billions of ISK monthly with literally no risk. The money pays for and replaces 100+ capital fleets, ensuring the moons are effectively invulnerable and creating a lock on 0.0 membership.
Moon mining needs to have a risk, I really liked it when you proposed that silos/storage be located outside of the POS and become raidable. I'd love to see smaller groups more able to contend in 0.0 and be able to raid these previously invulnerable resources.
|
Qlanth
Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:12:00 -
[266]
1. Level 4 Missions - Far too much money for far too little risk. Lower the amount of ISK made or move the missions to low sec or even 0.0. Running Level 4 missions in High-Sec can bring in as much money as ratting in 0.0 space.
2. Artillery, or perhaps more accurately Minmatar Battleships - Compared to every other race they are practically worthless, far too little range, far too little damage.
3. All e-war except ECM - There is absolutely no reason to use anything other than ECM in any fight. Given the choice every single person will pick ECM for every single situation. It doesn't matter what the shiptypes are, or the range. The answer to this is NOT to make ECM worse but to make other e-war more viable.
|
The Constructerer
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:16:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Frothgar #1 Can't say this enough. Moon mining. So many of these do-nothing alliances generate hundereds of billions of ISK monthly with literally no risk. The money pays for and replaces 100+ capital fleets, ensuring the moons are effectively invulnerable and creating a lock on 0.0 membership.
Moon mining needs to have a risk, I really liked it when you proposed that silos/storage be located outside of the POS and become raidable. I'd love to see smaller groups more able to contend in 0.0 and be able to raid these previously invulnerable resources.
You, sir, must have never moon mined. A lot of players have this false impression that chaining moons generates "hundreds of billions of ISK". Ferrogel chains are roughly 25 billion a month, condensates about 20 billion. All others are well under 1.5 billion per month, and there are still many logistic risks involved and market competition.
My top 3: - Ewar is of little use outside of ECM. Fix this. - 8 hours to fully anchor and online is a waste of time. Queue this so a player need not sit around all day and push button. - level 4 missions. nerf dem.
|
Qlanth
Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:21:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Frothgar #1 Can't say this enough. Moon mining. So many of these do-nothing alliances generate hundereds of billions of ISK monthly with literally no risk. The money pays for and replaces 100+ capital fleets, ensuring the moons are effectively invulnerable and creating a lock on 0.0 membership.
Moon mining needs to have a risk, I really liked it when you proposed that silos/storage be located outside of the POS and become raidable. I'd love to see smaller groups more able to contend in 0.0 and be able to raid these previously invulnerable resources.
Moon mining does have a risk. That risk is other alliances gunning for your moons.
If you don't believe me ask KenZoku who just lost six R64 moons in 48 hours.
I will agree that it is far too easy for an Alliance to sit behind Sov 3 systems while jump bridging in capitals and Titans to lock down the system. There is no risk when you fight with a cynojammer and a half dozen Titans. It's not fun for either side.
Unfortunately I don't think this is a "balance" issue but more of a game mechanics issue.
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:21:00 -
[269]
See, I think instead of nerfing L4 missions, they need to fix L5 missions to be worth the risk.
|
Bilaz
Minmatar Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:22:00 -
[270]
1) large projectiles they lack: dps, range, damage type versality with t2 ammo and for some stupid reason ammo not boosting falloff. 2) small missiles - rockets and lights - fitting recs are too high, and damage - too low and very dependant on range|speed|sig. you end up fitting small projectiles with same or better damage and range + much lower pg\cpu recs on low tier guns. 3) too many risk-free options to evade fight - log off (after jump in or in warp), high agility, cloak, mwd to insta, lolwhat scanning system - so to catch sentient target you need miracle, 10+ gang or not-so-sentient target.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |