Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 20:14:00 -
[1]
There has for some time been a steady decline in the useful of Battleships in pvp applications across the board. Changes to the class directly in some cases and changes to modules in others. When battleships were last looked at, the only tech 2 ships were Interceptors, the only capital ship ever conceived of was the Minmatar Leviathon, tech 2 weapons were just an itch in TomB's pants, and the Jovians were still relevant to the rest of us.
A lot has changed since the days of 1400s one shotting orbiting frigs, Cruise Kestrels, Torpedo Caracals, Ten Berserker gankageddons, Heavy Nos actually being a good idea over neuts, and the infamous Cavalry Raven. Battleships were once the absolute pinnacle of achievement for a combat character, and were for a time as hard to obtain and master as the Titans were for their first year.
Now obviously we can't simply roll EVE back to those days and I don't think anyone would actually want to do that, even the BS junkies. But there are other things that can be done:
- Increase base scan resolution across the board by 100% (Drake base 195 mm would still be higher)
- Double the size of Battleship drone bays across the board and possibly the drone bandwidth limits (not to exceed 125)
- Give all Battleships an additional 3 slots (default one slot to each power level, but not to make any power level have more than 8 slots)
- Consider Role Bonuses to enhance particularly deficient Battleships such as the Megathron (perhaps an mwd bonus)
- Consider giving Battleship pilots the option of training up for and using a Jump Drive module series (Low slot for the drive module itself, mid slot for the drive capacitor, and high slot for the drive navigation array) [Possibly allow the jump drive to lock on to stars rather than cynos]
I know some of those seem outrageous and collectively they seem overpowered, but consider the actual effect they will have. Doubling base scan resolution still makes them target everything slower than BCs and below, it just doesnt make it take a ridiculous amount of time. Doubling the drone bay size itself wouldn't change much other than allowing all BSes to carry a larger variety and/or reserve drones, the bandwidth change would have to be reviewed case by case, but I believe all races should have at least one BS with 125... Caldari where art thine?
The three additional slots could easily be taken the wrong way, it would of course make BSes stronger across the board, but what would the actual effect be? BS and BC slot counts are very close to each other giving the BC no disadvantage in versatility. Fitting limits wouldn't change and overall the only major change might be a bit more damage or a bit more tank. The point is to increase options and to get further from the idea that there is only one or two viable fits for each ship. Basically to increase versatility overall.
The Jump Drive thing is sort of a pet project of mine, I believe all ships should have them and I believe it should be the primary method of interconstellational/interregional travel. That said, I understand CCP will probably never make that happen, but that doesn't mean capitals and certain lame t2 BS should be the only ships with them. The reason I went with the idea of making it a modular system is so there would be a slot and fitting tradeoff in addition to the cost of cargo and capacitor and the fuel itself. The range of them should be somewhere between BO and Dreads. The star lock idea is to promote smaller groups using this feature and to limit the need to dual box an alt just to use this. But as with everything else, it can be discussed further.
The intent of this prop is to discuss the topic in a more official capacity and to not introduce ideas that do something to make BSes OP again.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 20:16:00 -
[2]
I of course will be supporting myself.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
PhoenixDawn
Gallente Forge Regional Security United Corporations Of Modern Eve
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:29:00 -
[3]
Battleships in their current incarnation will always have their role... but increasingly they are finding themselves marginalized more and more. Just look at the various killboards to see where the venerable battleship ranks against battlecruisers and smaller ships.
Taken alongside the faster, more maneuverable, and almost as strong, battlecruiser one would question why they want to ship up to something so large and slow. And it seems that every new expansion introduces a new cruiser hull. Many of those new cruisers can put out almost as much DPS as some BS piloted by median skill level players (Tengu: 500 DPS. 'Geddon w/ lev3 gunnery skills pilot: 550 DPS) and that's nothing compared with a cruiser outstripping a BS entirely (Rook v/ Scorp) in every way. (Yes, the relevant Tech levels are understood. The BS should still do more than a cruiser, regardless of the cruiser's tech level)
Battleships do need to be re-examined to bring them back up to a 'combat threat' worth looking at rather than just another 'meh' on the field.
As to what can be done... don't ask me. BS is not the only hull that needs a serous examination (Destroyers, AFs, low tier frigates).
|
mchief117
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:30:00 -
[4]
This actualy has some good concepts
I like the idea about being able to equip a Jump Drive even if its range is limmited to say 4 Lightyears it would give theBS platform a mobility advantage while not having to increase its actual speed.
I would also be interested in giving each BS a specific role it could play currently in my section of 0.0 a BS must be fit for make alpha or mega tank and theres about 2 BS that are used ( mini).
it would be nice to have a Heavy Hitter class, a able to effectivly deal with smaller ships class, and a all around BS calss. to the best of my knowlage the Scorp is the only BS with a dedicated role
the rest of your options are varyable per BS they would be applied to , every one could agree that a Domi has quite the buffer on drones and etc
|
AtheistOfFail
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 21:39:00 -
[5]
Supporting just because I'm having to pilot 57 jumps in a Raven and i wish i could just jump there.
PS: Extra slots and some drone space for Caldari. Nice!
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:03:00 -
[6]
I said it before but it bears repeating: as a primarily battleship pilot myself, with years of experience flying solo or in small groups for PvP, there are 2 main factors that discourage me from continuing PvP with battleships:
1) inability to achieve speeds and agility required to be competitive with cruiser sized ships. That doesn't mean I need battleships to be faster or even have same agility, just a smaller gap between the ship classes in order to have a chance at trapping them with smart intercept or evasive maneuvers. Ever since the Great Nano Nerf, the spread between possible speeds has decreased dramatically, so there's much less variety in tactics for small scale PvP.
2) greatly increasing numbers of hot drops, that's been steadily rising as more people trained for carriers, dreads, motherships, titans. The hot drop mechanics are super easy to pull off and any ship - even farmer Ravens, can easily fit a cyno. Battleship, being larger and less agile target, makes perfect victim for hotdropping - just tackle it and light the cyno. There are no counters available to small gangs. The best way to avoid hot drops is to fly something small and agile, something that's not worth hotdropping.
Both of these things aren't hypothetical ideas, they are based on EVE history and their influence on battleships in PvP can be determined by non-biased datamining.
I'll address the main poster's ideas:
*) "Increase base scan resolution across the board by 100%" That's certainly a tasty change for battleship pilots. However it's impact on PvP dynamics would be near-zero. Battleships don't need fast lock because they aren't tacklers. Even the doubling of scan res would not make battleship effective tackler.
*) "Double the size of Battleship drone bays across the board and possibly the drone bandwidth limits (not to exceed 125)" This change would mostly change the balance of power within the battleships, in some undesirable ways. Mostly the Gallente would be shafted. Either way, this is another change that is simply too insignificant to impact battleship usage in PvP.
*) "Give all Battleships an additional 3 slots (default one slot to each power level, but not to make any power level have more than 8 slots)" This change would have significant impact on battleship usage in PvP and even I cannot predict how. Certainly it would make battleships more desirable, more used, but the balance of power between the battleships and other ships will change significantly.
*) "Consider giving Battleship pilots the option of training up for and using a Jump Drive module series" This would hardly make the battleship more desirable for anything but fleet warfare. And alliance fleet warfare already has plenty of titans to jump bridge everyone where they need to go.
The hole jumping mechanic in EVE is pretty bad for PvP. It's unpredictable, it breaks continuity of force movements, it decreases value of strategic planning.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:22:00 -
[7]
Back before DD change. To be DD-proof you needed to be a battleship. So they had that place. This changed and made running around in hacs better.
Then bombs came along which moreso are focused toward being anti-bs; as most hacs can just run.
Then fighter bombers came along which melted bs face. Sure this one got fixed but it doesnt really address the total issue.
On good side is how t2 hacs arent insurable and pvpers really hurt on losses. oh wait.. perhaps that's the deflation im seeing?
My suggestion tbh is buff bombs to work against cruiser-bc sizes @ full damage.
Way better idea then destabilizing highsec bs usage by far. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
|
Testic El'Hed
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jason Edwards Back before DD change. To be DD-proof you needed to be a battleship. So they had that place. This changed and made running around in hacs better.
Then bombs came along which moreso are focused toward being anti-bs; as most hacs can just run.
Then fighter bombers came along which melted bs face. Sure this one got fixed but it doesnt really address the total issue.
On good side is how t2 hacs arent insurable and pvpers really hurt on losses. oh wait.. perhaps that's the deflation im seeing?
My suggestion tbh is buff bombs to work against cruiser-bc sizes @ full damage.
Way better idea then destabilizing highsec bs usage by far.
Or just nerf bombs.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 22:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Testic El'Hed
Originally by: Jason Edwards Back before DD change. To be DD-proof you needed to be a battleship. So they had that place. This changed and made running around in hacs better.
Then bombs came along which moreso are focused toward being anti-bs; as most hacs can just run.
Then fighter bombers came along which melted bs face. Sure this one got fixed but it doesnt really address the total issue.
On good side is how t2 hacs arent insurable and pvpers really hurt on losses. oh wait.. perhaps that's the deflation im seeing?
My suggestion tbh is buff bombs to work against cruiser-bc sizes @ full damage.
Way better idea then destabilizing highsec bs usage by far.
Or just nerf bombs.
And probes.
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.08 23:03:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jason Edwards Back before DD change. To be DD-proof you needed to be a battleship. So they had that place. This changed and made running around in hacs better.
Then bombs came along which moreso are focused toward being anti-bs; as most hacs can just run.
Then fighter bombers came along which melted bs face. Sure this one got fixed but it doesnt really address the total issue.
On good side is how t2 hacs arent insurable and pvpers really hurt on losses. oh wait.. perhaps that's the deflation im seeing?
My suggestion tbh is buff bombs to work against cruiser-bc sizes @ full damage.
Way better idea then destabilizing highsec bs usage by far.
These are good points. They mostly apply to fleet warfare rather than small gang, that's why I didn't think them immediately.
If battleships were able to go faster and be more agile, they'd have more survivability against bombs and fighters. Maneuverability is what makes HACs so good at surviving.
Alternatively, the other side of the coin is damage output. For some reason CCP really fears anything that increases damage. As a result, battleships barely do more damage than HACs or BCs, especially after you take tracking into account. Their only advantage is ability to project damage at great distance - sniper fleets. Would make battleships more desirable if their damage output was actually worth a second thought.
|
|
Mr LaForge
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 03:21:00 -
[11]
Supporting the battleship upgrades, but not the jump drive idea.
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 03:28:00 -
[12]
Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.
Not supported. Signature removed. |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 03:34:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ephemeron *) "Increase base scan resolution across the board by 100%" That's certainly a tasty change for battleship pilots. However it's impact on PvP dynamics would be near-zero. Battleships don't need fast lock because they aren't tacklers. Even the doubling of scan res would not make battleship effective tackler.
I disagree, it would make BSes far more able to cope with a dynamic battlefield. Blob warfare won't really benefit, but much of the rest of BS pvp would.
Quote: *) "Double the size of Battleship drone bays across the board and possibly the drone bandwidth limits (not to exceed 125)" This change would mostly change the balance of power within the battleships, in some undesirable ways. Mostly the Gallente would be shafted. Either way, this is another change that is simply too insignificant to impact battleship usage in PvP.
The Gallente are already shafted, but that has nothing to do with drones or drone proliferation. As for its impact in pvp... massive unless, again, you are a blobber.
Quote: *) "Give all Battleships an additional 3 slots (default one slot to each power level, but not to make any power level have more than 8 slots)" This change would have significant impact on battleship usage in PvP and even I cannot predict how. Certainly it would make battleships more desirable, more used, but the balance of power between the battleships and other ships will change significantly.
Yes it would, and that is rather the point. But, even in the most extreme example of this change, Armageddon getting +3 midslots, the overall effectiveness of the gank and tank of the geddon remains unchanged. All it gains is more options.
Quote: *) "Consider giving Battleship pilots the option of training up for and using a Jump Drive module series" This would hardly make the battleship more desirable for anything but fleet warfare. And alliance fleet warfare already has plenty of titans to jump bridge everyone where they need to go.
Oh I dunno, Jump Drives are the only reason to get a BO.... well and the Covert Jump Portal.
Quote: The hole jumping mechanic in EVE is pretty bad for PvP. It's unpredictable, it breaks continuity of force movements, it decreases value of strategic planning.
I believe you are referring to hotdropping, which is actually impossible with the way I want Jump Drives to work.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 03:37:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.
Not supported.
You have yet to form a cohesive argument as to why, Drake/HAC alt detected.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 04:25:00 -
[15]
- Scan Res: No. As a bigger ship, the BS needs to have a lower scan res. Unless you buff capital scan res at the same time, its improper balancing.
- Double drone size: No. BS that are designed to be drone-friendly (Aka: Dominix) already have a decent enough drone bay to be effective in their role. Anything more unbalances all BS across the board.
- Additional Slots: No. Tanking roles on BS are stable as-is, as well as slot layouts. Some aspects of these need to be balanced (aka: Active vs. Passive), but adding more slots does nothing to balance this. A BS should have more overall slots and choices for those slots, but not so much as to make them way over-balanced compared to other ships. An increase of 3 slots across the board is too much.
- Role Bonus: No. Aspects like this need to be handled by per-race buffs/nerfs, not individualized bonuses. Role bonuses are meant for T2/Capital only and should remain as such (with the exception of BC...not that you typically see people flying drakes with gang mods...)
- Battleship Jump Drive: No with a capital N.O.
BS don't need to be drastically altered. Some balancing needs to be done to the game, yes, but the ideas in this proposal are just over the top.
If you need examples of BS being used properly, looks at PL's Hellcat fleets or take some time to cruise around in lowsec. BS aren't out of the game at all, it just takes pilots adapting and changing their fits/tactics to counter new aspects of the game.
Quote: ImRedYoureDead > carebearing is when you make the other person's ship explode, right? ImRedYoureDead > I think they're officers or something ImRedYoureDead > they got names, they got to die |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 04:45:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lykouleon Scan Res: No. As a bigger ship, the BS needs to have a lower scan res. Unless you buff capital scan res at the same time, its improper balancing.
Debatable since the entire reason ships have different scan res was obsolete for the last six years. Even if every ship ingame was changed to have 500 scan res, they would still lock smaller ships slower than large ships.
Quote: Double drone size: No. BS that are designed to be drone-friendly (Aka: Dominix) already have a decent enough drone bay to be effective in their role. Anything more unbalances all BS across the board.
I think you are mistaking the drone bay for the drone bandwidth.
Quote: Additional Slots: No. Tanking roles on BS are stable as-is, as well as slot layouts. Some aspects of these need to be balanced (aka: Active vs. Passive), but adding more slots does nothing to balance this. A BS should have more overall slots and choices for those slots, but not so much as to make them way over-balanced compared to other ships. An increase of 3 slots across the board is too much.
Most of them would be getting two slots on their nontanking power tier and only one on their tanking tier. Raven would be 8/7/7 for example. Even with the option to tank more, they would still have to sacrifice something they would normally have.
Quote: Role Bonus: No. Aspects like this need to be handled by per-race buffs/nerfs, not individualized bonuses. Role bonuses are meant for T2/Capital only and should remain as such (with the exception of BC...not that you typically see people flying drakes with gang mods...)
Role Bonuses are meant to specialize an otherwise unspecialized ship, has nothing to do with it being T2 or a capital.
Quote: Battleship Jump Drive: No with a capital N.O.
So you want to remove the one built into the Black Ops Battleships?
Quote: BS don't need to be drastically altered. Some balancing needs to be done to the game, yes, but the ideas in this proposal are just over the top.
If you need examples of BS being used properly, looks at PL's Hellcat fleets or take some time to cruise around in lowsec. BS aren't out of the game at all, it just takes pilots adapting and changing their fits/tactics to counter new aspects of the game.
I still fly BS in low sec.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Dlardrageth
ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:16:00 -
[17]
+1
|
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 06:52:00 -
[18]
I'd be for an extra slot for all bs. 1, not 3
Lets be realistic, there is no chance in hell that CCP would add 3 slots just like that. Absolutely unrealistic.
Tho I think it'd be more useful to simply increase damage of large weapons, cause their real damage output is too close to that of BC and HACs and t3 and t2 bc and even some cruisers.
However, the real issue is still survivability - bs just really bad at surviving these days, and they don't have any important advantages, other than fleet battle sniping, to make up for it
|
Slick O'Hara
Pacific Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:30:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Slick O''Hara on 09/12/2010 07:31:17 Edited by: Slick O''Hara on 09/12/2010 07:30:29
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Most of them would be getting two slots on their nontanking power tier and only one on their tanking tier. Raven would be 8/7/7 for example. Even with the option to tank more, they would still have to sacrifice something they would normally have.)
...8/7/7 slot layout... on a raven. That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things I've ever read. If you're really that bad at flying battleships that you think buffing the tier 3's to near eidolon levels is a good idea you really need to stop flying them.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:34:00 -
[20]
When CCP created BCs, they basically took cruisers and added a bunch of slots. The problem is this encroached on the realm of the BS in every category except raw power and even that gap was closed significantly. But unless there is a similar concept done for BSes, which is not likely, BSes will have to become their own BCs.
So perhaps the slot thing could be simpler: All BSes will have at least 3 more slots then any BC.
Harbinger has 18 slots... all BSes have 18 or 19. See the problem? So this adding 3 slots across the board thing is not so far fetched, CCP did more than that to the cruiser class just by making BCs.
It is perfectly validated, but given that CCP avoids buffing whenever possible... it isn't likely. Or they will insist on sticking to the current way to avoid making BSes 'too versatile' or some silly thing like that.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
|
Slick O'Hara
Pacific Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:35:00 -
[21]
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=11908768
This is not how an armageddon should be fit
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:37:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Slick O'Hara Edited by: Slick O''Hara on 09/12/2010 07:31:17 Edited by: Slick O''Hara on 09/12/2010 07:30:29
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Most of them would be getting two slots on their nontanking power tier and only one on their tanking tier. Raven would be 8/7/7 for example. Even with the option to tank more, they would still have to sacrifice something they would normally have.)
...8/7/7 slot layout... on a raven. That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things I've ever read. If you're really that bad at flying battleships that you think buffing the tier 3's to near eidolon levels is a good idea you really need to stop flying them.
You provided no reason for your comment, only attacked my character and apparently my ability to fly a BS. I'm surprised you even know what the Eidolon is, considering how lacking substance the rest of your post was.
But, let me let you in on the secret about the Eidolon. It isn't the ship's slot layout that makes it so uber. It's the Jovian modules it fits.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:40:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Slick O'Hara http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=11908768
This is not how an armageddon should be fit
Which part of that is your problem with it? Looks perfectly valid to me. Though that wasn't the fit I normally use.
You are off topic regardless and again, not supporting your argument.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Slick O'Hara
Pacific Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:44:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Slick O''Hara on 09/12/2010 07:46:51 1. You've fit energy weapon rigs(bad enough).... but no heat sinks. 2. sensor booster and eccm in the mids.... rather than a cap booster 3. a Neut in the last high... which would be good if you had a damn cap booster 4. Give me an eidolon hull with T2 modules and I'll show you an unbreakable tank.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:49:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Slick O'Hara 1. You've fit energy rigs.... rather than heat sinks. 2. sensor booster and eccm in the mids.... rather than a cap booster 3. a Neut in the last high... which would be good if you had a damn cap booster 4. Give me an eidolon hull with T2 modules and I'll show you an unbreakable tank.
I normally have heat sinks. I rarely ever need a cap booster, but I almost always need the SB and ECCM. If anything, I don't need the Warp Disruptor II. And the neut is for frig nuking, works fine if you dont leave autorepeat on.
As for the Eidolon with t2, how about you demonstrate that ridiculous 8/7/7 Raven setup instead?
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Edvar
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:49:00 -
[26]
Limitations are placed on the slot layouts of ships because it restricts the Damage Dealing/ Tanking/ and Tackle capabilities of it. If every ship were to have such a slot layout it would make flying every other ship near pointless and eve would become less diverse. If an Abaddon had 7 midslots and 7 lows and 8 highs, you could shield tank it and fit it for max Gank with a very nice shield tank. Battleships Hold the Crown for the biggest sub capital buffers without going into commandships and Strategic cruisers. They're built to Hit quite hard while being rather hard to take down at the same time. They Also are able to equip Heavy neuts which can almost Alpha a Battlecruisers Capacitor. So essentially although they are big and bulky, They play a significant role in fleet and solo pvp.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:51:00 -
[27]
The Abaddon would have 8/6/8 slot arrangement.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Slick O'Hara
Pacific Dawn
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:52:00 -
[28]
Heavy neuts have a 24 second cycle time, it's easy to keep modules active against that.
I'm confident I could take out that geddon in a rifter, or a maller, or a harb.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:55:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Anubis Xian on 09/12/2010 07:56:29 The Rifter would be annoying, but you wouldn't kill me with it. And the Harb or Maller, well neither of those would last long enough to eat through the ehp.
So I imagine you would have to do what everyone else does and bring friends.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
Word of Chaos |
Edvar
|
Posted - 2010.12.09 07:57:00 -
[30]
Dude thats Overpowered as hell, the abaddon's tank is already brutal, you not only made it even more brutal, but the one downside to the abaddon is the lack of mids. 6 Mids makes it so you could fit everything you possibly needed, your essentially want battleships to be perfect in every single way dude. Im Sorry but i gaurentee my abaddon will drop every single battlecruiser easily you can throw at me lol.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |