Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The R00k
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 14:28:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Blacksquirrel Increase dreadnought range and give them a bonus against super caps. Give them another high slot. Essentially create an anti super cap ship thats not so great against smaller ships.
Because that will work........ So well that no one will use super caps and dreads will be the new flotm. How about they fix travel systems and tackling and give fleets formations that make it negative for the entire fleet to shoot one target unless it is small ships shooting 1 big ship.
God forbid 1000 people shooting 1 ever get fixed.
|
Jaari Val'Dara
Caldari Atomic Zeppelins
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 14:32:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Gnulpie With 1 trillion isk you can get maybe 60 supercarriers or 6.666 battleships (16 bil per SC, 150 mil per BS).
The BS would MELT the supercarriers in absolutely no time.
If you assume 600 dps on each BS, you get in total around 4 mil dps for the whole blob. Thus, you can kill a supercap every 10-15 seconds. After 5 minutes you have killed half the supercaps.
The supercaps though can't kill you that fast. The fighterbombers are not that useful against fast BS, fighters are too slow to kill the BS efficiently (remember, every 10 seconds a supercap gets killed), supercaps can't switch targets fast enough. Even if the SC's would kill 2 BS per second, you would still have 90% of the BS left after 5 minutes while only 50% of the SC would have survived until then.
No, the BS-blob would absolutely smash the SC's and is completely superior.
There are only two problems: 1) You don't get 6000+ people together for that. 2) The server would die horribly.
That is considering a perfect lagless battle. Even without any lag, there's no way you could command 6k people with perfect synchrony, that would decease efficiency even further.
|
JC Anderson
Caldari Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 14:33:00 -
[33]
Ahem...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Hb6I-_mq8
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 14:35:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Gnulpie With 1 trillion isk you can get maybe 60 supercarriers or 6.666 battleships (16 bil per SC, 150 mil per BS).
The BS would MELT the supercarriers in absolutely no time.
If you assume 600 dps on each BS, you get in total around 4 mil dps for the whole blob. Thus, you can kill a supercap every 10-15 seconds. After 5 minutes you have killed half the supercaps.
The supercaps though can't kill you that fast. The fighterbombers are not that useful against fast BS, fighters are too slow to kill the BS efficiently (remember, every 10 seconds a supercap gets killed), supercaps can't switch targets fast enough. Even if the SC's would kill 2 BS per second, you would still have 90% of the BS left after 5 minutes while only 50% of the SC would have survived until then.
No, the BS-blob would absolutely smash the SC's and is completely superior.
There are only two problems: 1) You don't get 6000+ people together for that. 2) The server would die horribly.
The problem isnt so much that it is impossible to get 6k people (okay it is a major problem), but it is also that it is ridiculous that the only counter besides more of the same, is outnumbering your opponents 20 to 1 (roughly what you need if you want to kill a supercap with subcaps, with caps you need arround 10 to 1 or so). I think that pretty much fills the definition of overpowered.
|
KHAN SUNE
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 15:43:00 -
[35]
Guys for gods sake go and get laid!!
|
Damien McCandless
Caldari Baden's Army
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 15:47:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Kash Nirukhi These days there's no ships. Is eve online becoming a mothers-only game? So any suggestions?
nerf jumpers?
the motherbomber, the locking jump, maximum bs
Feel !
Ah someone talking sense as always -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Joe Phoenix -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *sigh* |
Damien McCandless
Caldari Baden's Army
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 15:50:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Furb Killer
There are only two problems: 1) You don't get 6000+ people together for that. 2) The server would die horribly.
The problem isnt so much that it is impossible to get 6k people (okay it is a major problem), but it is also that it is ridiculous that the only counter besides more of the same, is outnumbering your opponents 20 to 1 (roughly what you need if you want to kill a supercap with subcaps, with caps you need arround 10 to 1 or so). I think that pretty much fills the definition of overpowered.
I cant begin to describe how competely moronic your statement is. Please leave existance immeadiately. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally by: Joe Phoenix -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *sigh* |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 15:53:00 -
[38]
Is it really a problem that some entity can field xxx supers in one spot?
What would you say if that blob would not be able to jump faster than 2 lightyears per minute?
Get rid of Rooms with Doors - Shortrange Jumpdrives for everybody! |
MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 16:13:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: MaiLina KaTar Restrict number of supercaps to number of people in alliance divided by thousand. Done.
It's why Protoss only fields one Mothership in SC2. Six of em would be kinda ridiculous.
Alt alliances would simply be made to house the supercaps. If you're already spending 20-80bil on your ship what's another 1bil for an alt alliance?
Also 6 motherships in sc2 would be useless, 2 might have a practical use (one moves the cloaked army out and the other warps em back if things go bad) but more than that would be a massive waste of rescources (as if its not already a waste fielding one :D )
I'm talking about restricting based on amount of people in the alliance ie accounts, not characters.
And I firmly believe that 6 Vortex & Recalls would be a little bit overpowered :p
|
Blacksquirrel
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 16:24:00 -
[40]
Originally by: The R00k
Originally by: Blacksquirrel Increase dreadnought range and give them a bonus against super caps. Give them another high slot. Essentially create an anti super cap ship thats not so great against smaller ships.
Because that will work........ So well that no one will use super caps and dreads will be the new flotm. How about they fix travel systems and tackling and give fleets formations that make it negative for the entire fleet to shoot one target unless it is small ships shooting 1 big ship.
God forbid 1000 people shooting 1 ever get fixed.
1. makes dreads more useful 2. If they're only good against POS's and bonus against supers...not really an issue. Considering supers are good against well... most everything.
How is the tactic of selecting a single a target an issue?... Die to quickly? Well thank math for that one....What the hell do you expect?
|
|
Hacra
Minmatar Cosmodynamics Joint Venture Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 16:39:00 -
[41]
CCP should definately change motherships.
Currently some motherships can build better tank than titans and only with 1/5th of the price of titan, it's the ultimate end game vessel that ccp so hates to see. (So only use for titan is to bridge fleets around, perioid. Silly way to spend 60-100b+)
With the old Mothership HPs you could still tank 2-4 doomsdays just fine if you knew how to fit the damn thing.
So imho, there's massive imbalance with motherships currently.
What'd be nice is to keep the mothership DPS the same, but remove the stupendous amount of hitpoints to the previous levels.
|
Mithrasith
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 16:39:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Mithrasith on 17/05/2011 16:42:10 Most of you are missing the simple question:
"Why would CCP make SC's so buff? What incentive is there for them to do that?"
Simple answer: "durr, cause they are dumbest 4ever!"
Internet Answer: "They derped"
Real Answer:"To reduce Lag"
Making the answer super explicit: "It was done on purpose with the full knowledge that SC's would be over-powered and they would become the primary ship class for combat in 0.0"
The explanation:
Someone brought up the point earlier: "You have to bring 1 trillion isk worth of battleships to beat 1 trillion isk worth of Super Carriers".
Do you know how much lag that would cause?
CCP's marketing flagship is 0.0 conquerable space, super huge fleet fights on a single server. That's the bread and butter.
In an age of lots of available ISK, and lots of billionaires, and a lengthy expensive fight against lag to keep this concept alive, how do you put in a temporary fix so that you dont have to announce to the MMO world that the single server idea is not scaling well? SuperCarriers.
Further Obvious Explanation
For some additional explanation is required. My apologies.
Super Carriers are expensive, and they also take a lot of training time. At the time of introduction, the number of players that could afford, and pilot SC's was small. Buffing SC's caused the "Rush to SC's" which would buy CCP some time. They knew that everyone and their brother would migrate to SC's. they knew there would be 50 SC blobs, but that works well for them because if you have a 100vs100 Capital fight, its not a big deal, or a 200vs200 Capital fight, that's no problem. But you cant have a 600vs600 fight anymore (and most players in EVE can afford nice sub-caps now).
They will nerf SuperCarriers eventually one they have a more permanent solution in place to combat the lag issue (which oddly enough was introduced by the Drake - which was an incentive ship to allow new players to feel like they were making a contribution)
Now on to the High sec buff explanation:
Same as the SC explanation. They want 0.0 to be a viable, more hardcore place. They have moved more income opportunities to High sec to get a lot of the Bears out of low sec in order to keep their flagship bread and butter marketing/feature alive.
So there you have it. A SC nerf will come, but not until they have changed 0.0 mechanics a bit more, removed some of the chaff (bears), and altered it such that they can keep the fleet fights manage-able.
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 17:04:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Furb Killer Balance by ISK cost is beyond ******ed. If I fit an estamel invuln field on my drake, should i be able to beat 100 t2 drakes? Balance primarily needs to be on a per ship base, not per ISK. ISK isnt really a factor and very expensive very good ships only promote botting. If you spend more ISK on a ship you should be more effective, but you should not be without counters on a per ship base, contrary what you have now with supers.
Isk is a deciding factor when you can throw it around, better and more expensive functional gear will top poor quality control gear to the cheapest contract. The problem with your example is that the estamel is not really worth the 25 billion price (on contracts, no even sure if thats accurarte), it does one thing and raises all resists. It will give your drake a huge advantage in 1 on 1 or maybe a very small gang. The mineral cost alone is probably less then a T2 Invulnerability, its only more expensive because of its rarity and +20% resist over it.
Super Carriers on the otherhand, do alot of things (tank, DPS, remote rep, command modules) and each is probably worth at least 5 battleship pilots. If you had 100vs100 battleships and each had a value of 1 point, then the two fleets are equal. If a SC is worth at least 5 pilots for each ship in the fight and 10 people in 1 fleet bring an SC your, the side then becomes 140vs100 (90BS+(10SCx5)=140 points). SC are worth more in mineral costs and SP requirements then a random rare drop NPC item. The problem is the fact that one side can produce more and more SC, to the point if 1 side brings 100 SC and the other brings 100 BS your basicly looking at a 500 to 100 fight. Yeah, you will loose when out number and outgunned.
Capitals are essential end game gear, not everyone wants to always fly a disposable battleship. There are many ways to counter an SC: Bring your own. Steal them by Corp Infiltration. Or just bring your cheap fleets and go all GoonWars on them for 6 months like back in early 2009, even attrition will takes it toll because you if you cannot destroy the SC, then you can waste their time, disrupt logistics, and just cause the alliance to fold in on itself because human nature will take its course and they will tire of the constant disruptions. If you cannot stand up against an SC for one battle then stop asking CCP to bring the Nerf Bat to bring it down to managble levels for you, because some alliances can already manage to put out dozens of them making it a hassle for you is just about as pointless for me to ask to make highsec 100% safe because I cannot manage to deal with the hassel of highsec basement rats looking for one sided fights that will guarantee them a marauder kill to their tier 2 piece of **** disposable BC because thats all they can afford to bring. Remember, fly what you can afford to loose and if one side is bringing in sports cars to your Scooter Puff jrs then you have lost the race already.
|
Fix Lag
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 17:04:00 -
[44]
If you have never seen a supercarrier before in your life, get out. You have nothing to contribute that is of any value. Take your empire-pubbie-theory-crafting crap and stuff it in your pimped mission ship's aft thruster nozzle.
Supercapitals (titans and supercarriers, not just supercarriers) are both going to get hit with a nerfbat, presumably very hard. I myself am cheering for it, because they have ruined sovereignty warfare for anyone not flying one. Your posts, however, are not going to change diddly-squat for the better. Particularly considering almost all of them have been so utterly stupid I don't know how you find the undock button. Limiting supercarriers (or anything, for that matter) by number of alliance members? Right, pretty sure it's been covered a thousand times how people will simply create shell alliances to get around any kind of requirement like that. Supercarriers cause less lag? Get out, you've never been in-system when one deploys fighter bombers.
Stop posting, all of you. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it ****es me and every other nullsec player who's going to have to deal with the changes CCP makes off.
Fix Lag! |
Mithrasith
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 17:18:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Fix Lag If you have never seen a supercarrier before in your life, get out. You have nothing to contribute that is of any value. Take your empire-pubbie-theory-crafting crap and stuff it in your pimped mission ship's aft thruster nozzle.
Supercarriers cause less lag? Get out, you've never been in-system when one deploys fighter bombers.
Actually yes I have seen many super carriers, and yes I have been in system when numerous SC's dropped their fighter bombers, and its still less lag than 800 vs 800 sub capital fights (which yes I have actually participated in).
|
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 17:53:00 -
[46]
Nerf is so a strong word, what you really need is a counter. And IMHO just buffing the dreads is a bad idea. Why not something like a buff for destroyers or a new type in that segment that is really good at shredding fighter and bomber drones while it remains relatively immune to their damage. -- please consider to visit our w-space system, cake will be served immediately. |
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 18:28:00 -
[47]
I'm involved in sov warfare every day, and there are far more sub-caps out there being used on a daily basis than SCs and Titans, so no, they aren't completely making everything else obsolete.
The problem isn't that super-capitals are overpowered. They should be overpowered compared to everything else. They are SUPER CAPITALS. They should be the principal ship that decides the outcome of sov warfare.
The problem is that they are far too cheap, both isk wise and pain in the ass factor wise, to use, which has lead to their proliferation. These should be the ultimate strategic weapons in the game, not something that is used as an "I win" button to decide the outcome of sub-cap engagements, or to hot-drop on every un-wary hulk.
The answer is pretty simple. Make them really expensive to use. If it cost 50 million in fuel to jump a SC, and 100 million to jump a Titan, they stop being tactical weapons. Who wants to spend billions to jump Titans and SCs in to "I win" a BS fight, not to mention having to haul freighters full of fuel around for the privilege?
If this was done, these could remain the awesome ships that they are, while being used to decide major, strategic engagements. When you saw them on the field, it would be "shock and awe" time again, as it should be.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 18:49:00 -
[48]
Originally by: davet517 I'm involved in sov warfare every day, and there are far more sub-caps out there being used on a daily basis than SCs and Titans, so no, they aren't completely making everything else obsolete.
The problem isn't that super-capitals are overpowered. They should be overpowered compared to everything else. They are SUPER CAPITALS. They should be the principal ship that decides the outcome of sov warfare.
The problem is that they are far too cheap, both isk wise and pain in the ass factor wise, to use, which has lead to their proliferation. These should be the ultimate strategic weapons in the game, not something that is used as an "I win" button to decide the outcome of sub-cap engagements, or to hot-drop on every un-wary hulk.
The answer is pretty simple. Make them really expensive to use. If it cost 50 million in fuel to jump a SC, and 100 million to jump a Titan, they stop being tactical weapons. Who wants to spend billions to jump Titans and SCs in to "I win" a BS fight, not to mention having to haul freighters full of fuel around for the privilege?
If this was done, these could remain the awesome ships that they are, while being used to decide major, strategic engagements. When you saw them on the field, it would be "shock and awe" time again, as it should be.
They were fine when they cost 30-40bil to buy, when 30-40bil was a crapload and not everyone had gazillions of dreads. Then they got pretty much **** when dreads got cheap and people could spam them. Now they're powerful as they come in blobs, cuz, just as you say "it is cheap".
But I don't agree that the cost of moving them should go up, NC and other blob loving entities who loves to farm up their homeland would just spam a gazillion of them and be happy with whatever, while the more offensive entities gets bit in the ass.
It would make alot more sense to up the price of actually building them. That would make Dreads cost effective again and potentially more useful.
Either case; the price. And personally, I feel it's quite ******ed that people can just buy minerals in Jita and jump it out to spam-build supercaps. I know I worked my ass off to get my first, and I have participated in the defence ops of moving regular Freighters through low-/null to build just one of them. With current prices and easy-to-build I could just a few whenever I felt like it.
Prices. Has. To. Go. Up. ****loads. And preferably it'd be alot harder to build them in null as well. Not as in time/CSAA defence, it'd be interesting to make parts of the building material something that was forced to mine in null. That'd be a nice "boost" to mining as well. -
|
davet517
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 19:01:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Misanth
It would make alot more sense to up the price of actually building them. That would make Dreads cost effective again and potentially more useful.
The problem with that is that they'd hardly ever get used. Even now, there's an extremely strong incentive for their pilots to bail out to NPC space or low-sec and sit out any war that they even think might not go their way. It's why we've seen entities who have a lot of them fold without ever using them. Making the ships themselves far more expensive to buy would just make that worse.
We want them to get built, and used, and destroyed, and built again. We just don't want them to be the ultimate tactic in every situation.
|
Monty D
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 20:45:00 -
[50]
A reasonable discussion for once, the removal of caps using jump bridges will help reduce their use somewhat and though it will affect all caps it will stop supers jumpbridging in to overwhelm sub cap attacks and that must be good
|
|
Alty McExpendable
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 20:49:00 -
[51]
Figures PL would say their abilities are just fine and the trick is to make them more expensive.
8/10 because several people clearly bought it.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 21:44:00 -
[52]
Originally by: davet517
Originally by: Misanth
It would make alot more sense to up the price of actually building them. That would make Dreads cost effective again and potentially more useful.
The problem with that is that they'd hardly ever get used. Even now, there's an extremely strong incentive for their pilots to bail out to NPC space or low-sec and sit out any war that they even think might not go their way. It's why we've seen entities who have a lot of them fold without ever using them. Making the ships themselves far more expensive to buy would just make that worse.
We want them to get built, and used, and destroyed, and built again. We just don't want them to be the ultimate tactic in every situation.
Fair enough. But shoehorning them into one role (like damage) would be pretty damn awkward as well. Then it gets a tool for certain players only.
I'm probably one of few mom-pilots who really hate the damage role they got (which has a logic ofc, having things used is more cool than not).
But the supercaps have also their logistic and support roles, which was there from the beginning and still is something I personally would never want to see lost. I love that my mom is a huge carrier. I want the drone bay. I want the remote repping. I want the bigger corp hangar/ship bay. Without those things it's not a huge carrier, and with purely FB's for example it's just another blob tool for 0.0 fleet warfare.
Then again, I'm biased for small scale warfare and using my motherships as logistic tools. A few years of blobfest has put me quite disgusted with that whole thing. -
|
Sealiah
Minmatar Coffee Lovers Brewing Club ROMANIAN-LEGION
|
Posted - 2011.05.17 21:54:00 -
[53]
SC are fine at the moment... We need some bigger ships that are even less cost effective to kill the SC to make them the uber-ship. Make the new ship like the old titan, a few dozens in the game and when you hear about one, people shiver.
Base price - 300b.
|
Speaker4 theDead
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 00:38:00 -
[54]
Discussion is over when you talk about 2000+ people in one system. You then assume you can focus fire in an enviroment where your ship can take 10 to 20 minutes to respond. (Assuming they respond at all)
|
Fitz VonHeise
Eye Bee Em Stellar Defense Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 01:10:00 -
[55]
If you want pure smaller ship pvp then come fight in worm holes.
|
IsoMetricanTaliac 2
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 02:49:00 -
[56]
Yes the current way these ships are being used & the amount of them being built should be setting off alarm bells in every area of CCP that has anything to do with balancing...
It's like they have come full circle only now they have more power due to FB's & they are very hard to counter unless your able to field 50 of the damn things as well.
Maybe FB's need to have limits put on them on what they are able to be used against? Make it that when they are attacking anything other than a capital ship they suffer penalties/drawbacks which make them as effective as using normal fighters. Basically SuperCarriers get 0 penalties whether used in 0.0 or Lowsec & have very little that is able to counter them effectively. Especially when a blob of them can wipe the floor with just about anything in the game & be on their way to safety before a defense can be mounted.
CCP have created a situation where SC's are being used like normal carriers in bigger numbers & there are many many more being built each & every day. Is the day of super capitals online in 0.0/lowsec coming? Well current trends might say that it is very nearly already here!
In a Time When Many Will Seek Death, There Will Always Be Those Like Me Who Won't Mind Helping Them Along Their Way!?! |
Adophnil
Amarr Dark Reality Unified
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 06:02:00 -
[57]
Supercap proliferation in lowsec is especially rough, but if you start showing up with your unsupported SC and essentially doing stupid nonsense with it (aka not keeping it in a blob of other supers) you risk blowing your billions of ISK the second anyone with a *slightly* bigger gankfleet decides to put some energy into ruining your day.
And when that ruination comes with the thrill, excitement, and joy of getting an SC killmail - there is a lot of motivation to do so. And the people who do so are quite good at what they do.
So right there you already have a basic understanding of why you start to see blob mentality with SCs. It's the same with many faction or faction fit expensive subcaps. Are you more or less willing to engage your Bhaalgorn when you have a 3man fleet or a 20 man fleet?
In nullsec it is the same, but also a question of power projection. And although I'd love to believe the PL guys perspective in theory, it's hilarious, because existing supercaps (in large numbers : I'm looking at you PL) would be ridiculously overpowered/grandfathered in against the ever-increasing slope of gaining even a remotely similar amount of "power".
I'm personally of the opinion that whatever happens needs to include a sizable Dread buff, and perhaps even bonus's them against supers. It won't decrease the SC blobs, in fact it'll just add more dreads into the mix - but it'll increase SC deaths - and that is a very very good thing. Perhaps the solution is just to make them slightly more killable?
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 06:07:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Damien McCandless
Originally by: Furb Killer
There are only two problems: 1) You don't get 6000+ people together for that. 2) The server would die horribly.
The problem isnt so much that it is impossible to get 6k people (okay it is a major problem), but it is also that it is ridiculous that the only counter besides more of the same, is outnumbering your opponents 20 to 1 (roughly what you need if you want to kill a supercap with subcaps, with caps you need arround 10 to 1 or so). I think that pretty much fills the definition of overpowered.
I cant begin to describe how competely moronic your statement is. Please leave existance immeadiately.
So you think requiring 20 to 1 odds to kill a ship is balanced? I would advice you to follow your own advice.
|
Miso Hawnee
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 06:54:00 -
[59]
Originally by: KHAN SUNE Guys for gods sake go and get laid!!
hey sailor, looking for a good time?
|
ichi Tekitsu
|
Posted - 2011.05.18 07:47:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Kash Nirukhi These days there's no use to subcaps anymore. The mothership has taken over the role of virtually any other ship. There is no way of countering these fleets except of a bigger blob of motherships. Is eve online becoming a mothership-only game? So any suggestions?
should ccp nerf the cyno? (f.e. it needs 50 l.o. per ship jumping in, or it takes 10s per ship to jump in?)
Should ccp nerf the mothership? (f.e. give it a bomber-only role, increase the locking time, reduce the jump range, put a maximum on cap ships allowed in system? make the sig on fighters and bombers so big that they have no use to subcaps? like bs guns have no use to frigs? )
Feel free to discuss!
I think the reason you wrote this is because you're getting " Owned ".... So you're being a poor sport in playing eve.... If say you're alliance was capable of using " Alot " supercarriers you wouldn't have write what you have said.... so either you're alliance get the ability to fly them n own others with or stfu n suck on you thumb while you're getting own by supercarriers.... Folks that are able to fly them are at risk of losing up to 25.5 Billion isk in one go... Do bare that in mind before you write something that has to do with " nerf " Oh another thing is they ( the ones that has the skill to fly SC ) spend a good year + just to be able to fly one, plus cost the of just items ( 15 - 20 billion ) . So it's rather crude or just plan poor sport to say " nerf " so easily just because you're getting " Owned " by an SC pilot.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |