Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 28 post(s) |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
179
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Ferox and sniper/brawler role Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
The ferox will never be better than the naga at kite sniping. It's just impossible.
I am trying to think of a scenario where the ferox could better and the only one i can think of is the fact that the ferox could kill an interceptor with drones, but that is all. For the ferox to be better with medium rails having their current damage, it would need to be faster than the naga. That's not happening...
Thus, make it a big moa. Or, make it something completely different...like a caldari boat that can actually mount some neuts without dying in a fire with its cap and fitting. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:35:00 -
[122] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Iniquita wrote:I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve? Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful. as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots
No links give a significant bonus and as such should be balanced as a big risk to being primaried and killed as e-war ships are. within LP range. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2178
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:36:00 -
[123] - Quote
ReK42 wrote:Fozzie could you comment on the boost amount issue? Why did you bring it down to 2%/3% rather than keep it 3%/5%? Are you open to considering reversing that and giving the one on-race bonus 5% on command ships?
My official position on this issue is as follows:
5% link bonuses are broken powerful, and I'm going to stab them in their metaphorical eye and then wiggle the knife. In game. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Ogopogo Mu
O C C U P Y Test Friends Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:36:00 -
[124] - Quote
I think the Ferox suggestion is the same one the team tried to use on the Merlin. Hopefully this one won't go through either.
- Medium rails are awful.
- Shield resist bonuses are what allows the Ferox a brawler role.
- If you want to snipe with a Caldari BC, you're silly if you use a Ferox instead of a Naga.
I like the idea behind the Tierecide project, but seriously the way to fix a platform that does not work is not always a total forced narrow repurposing. Fix the number of slots and the fitting issues and see how it goes. This, like a lot of the recent changes, have good intentions but are really bulldozing anthills. Introducing the ASB instead of just adjusting the parameters of active shield tanking is a perfect example of the problems you create when sledgehammering balance issues. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
406
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:37:00 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:
- Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.
- The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
Armour with skirmish with a few cracked eggs for gallente is far better than the alternative.
Removing resists as step one of your Ferox plan fills no one with confidence. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries Solar Assault Fleet
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:37:00 -
[126] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Iniquita wrote:I think its worth remember that there is a fifth leadership type in eve. Have you taken into consideration how a nerf to off grid boosting would affect mining in eve? Yup it's something we're putting a lot of thought into. Moving links ongrid has significant technical blockers at the moment so it's not coming anytime soon, and between now and that bright sunny someday we'll spend a lot of time consulting with miners to make sure gameplay stays interesting and useful. as i suggested above from what i can tell your biggest pet peve is being able to boost behind a pos. so why dont you make them unable to do so. while still allowing it from safe spots
Erh? Because that would most likely involve even more technical blockers?
|
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
597
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:37:00 -
[127] - Quote
Quote:Drake: once again, blame the modules, not the hull GÇô while missiles are being looked into by CCP Fozzie, shield tanking is the root of the problem here. Can any light be shed on this area? What is being bandied about with mods and shield tanking? Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
MadMuppet
Three Fish In A Box
590
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:38:00 -
[128] - Quote
The Claymore is going to become a missile boat? That sucks. November 6th, 2012 "With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now." --á CCP Ytterbium from:-áhttp://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73530 |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
417
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?
You mentioned technical difficulties, is this really so hard to program? It would seem to be the obvious way of doing it. The only question would be the size of the sphere. A small sphere would force people to choose between bonuses and options of tactical positioning, but forcing choices can be a good thing. There'd be scope for a warfare link that increased the range of other links too. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
406
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:42:00 -
[130] - Quote
MadMuppet wrote:The Claymore is going to become a missile boat? That sucks. The beginning of the end of all split weapons? That is literally the end of suck. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
ReK42
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:42:00 -
[131] - Quote
Welp.
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
1032
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:43:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote: An AOE range would be the way too go and make all CS brawlers
However, let's throw a brainstorming concept out here just for fun: What if gang links worked a lot like warp disruption spheres?
I like this
Ok, I do not think you need the Squad>Wing>Fleet command hierarchy for bonuses to apply. I mean, it's a nice idea, but it's a pain in the ass more times than anything at all, really, seriously when it comes to who you want to be able to warp a fleet while who you want to give bonuses. Assigning wing boosters and stuff is annoying.
It doesn't have to be there at all. Maybe for the basic leadership skill based % boosts, those can require a hierarchy, but for gang boosting, I dont think you need this there at all.
Then, yes, make it an AOE affect and set the range to something appropriate (50-100km?). Or, better yet, you can make certain ships give bonuses to gang boosting range instead of affect (i.e. so t3 gets a range bonus to command link range, while T2 gets an effect bonus - or whatever).
This would make me happy. The range makes sense, the bonuses will be better managed, and so on. Having multiple boosting ships on the field at the same time will be effective and not require juggling command positions in the middle of something stupid going on - and it makes the whole system a lot smoother and effective. Where I am. |
Melina Lin
Universal Frog
42
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:43:00 -
[133] - Quote
On the matter of Ferox:
14 inches mate! 14 inches and you want to make it a cowardly sniper? A sub-par sniper of all things?
*stares disapprovingly* |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:50:00 -
[134] - Quote
Also removing command processors would be nice although if we have the links as an AOE then maybe they wouldn't use them as they would need tank but still its much like micro shield mods they aren't needed and dont get used much. |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:53:00 -
[135] - Quote
Quote:With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.
Um, isn't one of the facets of tiericide is that you just need level 1 of the appropriate skill to fly that category of ships (i.e. Amarr Battleship I for all the Amarr battleships)? If so, the bolded sentence makes no sense, unless the appropriate level is I. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2188
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:56:00 -
[136] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:Quote:With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level. Um, isn't one of the facets of tiericide is that you just need level 1 of the appropriate skill to fly that category of ships (i.e. Amarr Battleship I for all the Amarr battleships)? If so, the bolded sentence makes no sense, unless the appropriate level is I.
The appropriate level is 1 :) Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
528
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:59:00 -
[137] - Quote
CCP Fozzie
What's the plan for the drone Prophecy exactly? Is it going to be a Harbinger with less damage from lasers and more damage from drones? Or something unique? |
Dracko Malus
Lightbringer's Sanctuary RAZOR Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 16:59:00 -
[138] - Quote
Wait a minute, you currently need racial cruiser 3 to get in a BC. But frigate 4 for a Cruiser.
Doesn't it make more sense to transfer the whole range up or down a notch to the same level?
Frigate 3 for Destroyer Destroyer 3 for Cruiser Cruiser 3 for BattleCruiser Battlecruiser 3 for Battleship BattleShip 3 and Capitals 3 for Dread/Carrier Carrier 3 for SuperCarrier Not sure what to do with Titan Skill though but I think Capital Ship 5 for Titan is fine.
Carriers and/or Dread to 3 wouldn't really make sense. Dread would perhaps be a choice, but Carrier with Drone interfacing 5 doesn't really as Titans don't have drones anymore.
I already have the solution for the "lack of skills" or "training" time complaint for the capitals.. just add the requirements for Jumpskills currently required for the BlackOps to the Capitals. That makes most sense.
So Jump Drive Operation 5 & Jump Drive calibration 4. I cringe whenever I hear someone ask for a cyno with Jump Drive Calibration 3.
Yes, training into a different race Capital once you've gotten into the first onewill be shorter, but I don't really see a problem in that. As long as you've trained for the actually useful capital skills which BS5 really isn't. Perhaps adding Large Capital Turret for each race to level 5 a pre-req for Dreads, and Fighters to 3/4 or something for Carriers? Tess La'Coil's loveslave. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1803
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:03:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Is there any plans to completely change information links to something more useful? Currently shield, armor and speed links help every ship. 99% of the time players will choose one of those three over information bonuses every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The current fleet hierarchy only sees real use of bonuses in the fleet and wing command spots. Which is tank and skirmish. Would changing the info bonuses to be bonuses to drones, which 90% of all ships in the game have, be an option?
Also I am one of the 7 with max information bonuses on T3 and command ships.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:04:00 -
[140] - Quote
\o/ down with the boost overlords \O/
\O/ |
|
DeltaPhalanx
Hordes Of Belial
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:05:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:DeltaPhalanx wrote:Will the changes to Gang Link bonuses be made "Role Bonues" or will the second gang link bonus supplant the existing second bonus for the Command Ships skill? Ie, would the Vulture's second Hybrid Optimal Range bonus become the 3% to Info War link bonus?
To clarify, each command ship has four bonuses based on Command Ships skill level; will the bonuses to links become native to the hull, plus having four bonuses, or will we have two bonuses and two gang link bonuses? Very likely they will become role bonuses. Once we're done we intend all 8 command ships to be useful for blowing stuff up and all 8 command ships to be useful for gang boosting.
Thank you Fozzie; looking forward to combat-oriented command ships |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2189
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:06:00 -
[142] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Fozzie, Is there any plans to completely change information links to something more useful? Currently shield, armor and speed links help every ship. 99% of the time players will choose one of those three over information bonuses every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The current fleet hierarchy only sees real use of bonuses in the fleet and wing command spots. Which is tank and skirmish. Would changing the info bonuses to be bonuses to drones, which 90% of all ships in the game have, be an option? Also I am one of the 7 with max information bonuses on T3 and command ships.
I trained max information warfare skills specifically for one Info Claymore fit for the AT. And then joined CCP before ever actually flying that ship on TQ.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
95
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:07:00 -
[143] - Quote
DeltaPhalanx wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:DeltaPhalanx wrote:Will the changes to Gang Link bonuses be made "Role Bonues" or will the second gang link bonus supplant the existing second bonus for the Command Ships skill? Ie, would the Vulture's second Hybrid Optimal Range bonus become the 3% to Info War link bonus?
To clarify, each command ship has four bonuses based on Command Ships skill level; will the bonuses to links become native to the hull, plus having four bonuses, or will we have two bonuses and two gang link bonuses? Very likely they will become role bonuses. Once we're done we intend all 8 command ships to be useful for blowing stuff up and all 8 command ships to be useful for gang boosting. Thank you Fozzie; looking forward to combat-oriented command ships
Particularly the Eos with proper drone bonuses would be nice instead of its ***** drone bay only bonus hopefully it will get a full set of ogres too |
Ming Tso
O C C U P Y Test Friends Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:07:00 -
[144] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Intaki Kauyon wrote:CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes. Quote:Reimbursement details: GÇóLet us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill. GÇó With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.
With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.
That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance: If I have currently: BC to V Gall Cruiser to V but Caldari Cruiser to IV Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get: Gall BC to V but Caldari BC to IV ? In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V. You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter. Antoine Jordan wrote:So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch. This is correct.
Sorry to rehash something already answered, but I'm missing something.
What happens if I DON'T have Racial Cruiser to III before the change, but I have Battlecruiser V.
Let's say I have the following skills:
Battlecruiser V Caldari Cruiser IV Minmatar Cruiser III Gallente Cruiser II Amarr Cruiser 0
What do I get then? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
179
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:08:00 -
[145] - Quote
more on the ferox:
One way of making it better than the naga would be to make it able to overheat modules for a while, perhaps a 10% bonus per level to heat dissipation would make it have a cool role. (Doesn't even need a tanking bonus if it can overheat it's tank for a fight)
Coupled with a damage bonus it would make the ferox useful in quite different ways than a naga. It could hold overheated damage for quite a while and tank overheated as well. Even if its second bonus was optimal range, it would still get great damage. This bonus would be a good way to give the ferox its tank and gank with a single bonus, rather than trying to decide between the damage/optimal, optimal/tank, tank/damage bonus patterns. Also would be a good point for newbies to start stepping into the thermodynamics part of PvP, which is more reasonable to jump into once a newbie has flown frigs and cruisers.
(CCP fozzie? what do you think about this :P) |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
246
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:08:00 -
[146] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2145868#post2145868CCP Fozzie wrote:Wanted to quickly address two of the more common points raised so far here:
- Skirmish links and the Amarr/Gallente command ships
We recognize that the skirmish links do fit especially well with Gallente blasterboats and the Gallente scram range bonuses. The initial plan here gives Skirmish to the Proteus for that reason, but it may prove a good idea to give skirmish bonuses to the Eos and Astarte as well. We are not going to rule out the possibility of making the Amarr command ships Armor/Info bonused and the Gallente command ships Armor/Skirm bonused. This would cause a significant disruption for the 7 of you that have the Eos trained specifically for Info links, but that may be a sacrifice worth making. Not going to make any promises now but it's on the table.
- The Ferox and sniper/brawler role
Our ideal goal for the Ferox is a ship that can be used as either a sniper or brawler (as long as it takes advantage of the optimal bonus with blasters), but that leans a bit towards sniper. We recognize that this is going to be a very difficult like to walk considering how much competition the Attack BCs (formerly known as Tier 3) give in the sniping department. Giving it a niche may mean giving it optimal/tracking bonuses and an extra turret, it may mean a damage bonus, or it may prove impossible. Consider "Big Moa" to be a fallback if the design doesn't shape up once we start playtesting. Getting this ship to work will likely also require a closer look at medium railguns as a weapon system.
I can't like this sort of feedback enough. Keep up the almost-top-notch work. |
Dracko Malus
Lightbringer's Sanctuary RAZOR Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:09:00 -
[147] - Quote
Ming Tso wrote:
Let's say I have the following skills:
Battlecruiser V Caldari Cruiser IV Minmatar Cruiser III Gallente Cruiser II Amarr Cruiser 0
What do I get then?
Caldari BC 5 Minmatar BC 5 No Gallente BC skill No Amarr BC skill
Current Cruiser skills will have to be at 3. Tess La'Coil's loveslave. |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:09:00 -
[148] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V.
why not four racial battlecruiser skills to V after patch if i have bc V?
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2189
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:10:00 -
[149] - Quote
Ming Tso wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Intaki Kauyon wrote:CCP: Would like a more clear representation of the BC/Destroyer skill changes. Quote:Reimbursement details: GÇóLet us repeat again: if you could fly it before, you will be able to do so after the change. Technically it means if you are able to fly an Oracle by having Amarr Cruisers 3 and Battlecruisers 3, we will remove the Battlecruisers skill from your character and give you Amarr Battlecruisers at 3. If you had Battlecruisers at 3 and Caldari Cruisers 3 instead, you would not receive Amarr Battlecruisers but the Caldari Battlecruisers skill at 3 instead. The same principle work with the Destroyers skill. GÇó With the way nested skill requirements work in EVE, it also means that you will still be able to fly an Apocalypse even if you donGÇÖt have the Amarr Battlecruiser skill trained at 4 after the change. It wonGÇÖt matter as long as you have the Amarr Battleship skill at the proper level.
With this in mind, it becomes quite obvious to focus on training the Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills before the change to get the maximum return effect. We highly recommend you start doing so now.
That's all fine and well. But while you are warning us on what to train now, please help us understand the change. You talk about BC skills translating based on the race you own via Cruiser or Frigates, but you don't say how that translates based on reverse. For instance: If I have currently: BC to V Gall Cruiser to V but Caldari Cruiser to IV Do I get each one of the 4 BC new skills to V just becuase of current BC is V, or do I get: Gall BC to V but Caldari BC to IV ? In that case you would get both racial battlecruiser skills to V. You'll get exactly the same level of bonus to your ships after the skill change as you did before it, and since you only need the cruiser skills to 3 to fly those BCs and getting cruiser higher doesn't give bonuses to the BCs, any cruiser skill levels beyond 3 don't matter. Antoine Jordan wrote:So if I have Battlecruisers V and Amarr Cruiser III, after the patch I'll have Amarr Battlecruiser V, right? So that I can fly them to the same effectiveness I could before the patch. This is correct. Sorry to rehash something already answered, but I'm missing something. What happens if I DON'T have Racial Cruiser to III before the change, but I have Battlecruiser V. Let's say I have the following skills: Battlecruiser V Caldari Cruiser IV Minmatar Cruiser III Gallente Cruiser II Amarr Cruiser 0 What do I get then?
Caldari Battlecruiser V, and Minmatar Battlecruiser V Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1804
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:10:00 -
[150] - Quote
Any thoughts on adding another level in the hierarchy so a fleet can hold 1,281. Granted I am not a fan of massive scale combat, but the game needs it. All wars are fought on a coalition level and the players have outgrown the current max numbers allowed in a fleet. This would also open up another level of bonuses where information (or a new version of it) could see use in large scale combat. Regulating them to a squad commander spot is impractical when you are only helping out ten people total. You are just better off bringing a combat ship.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |