Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
638
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:18:00 -
[91] - Quote
Mr Dobalina wrote:Aggghhhh why the hell do you guys keep using a cammo paint scheme on spaceships? It doesn't make them any less visible in space. To convey the sense that these are vessels redesigned by military entities. Has nothing to do with visibility. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1184
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:20:00 -
[92] - Quote
Pretty sure I'd rather keep the cap bonus on the harbinger than gain a tracking bonus. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
800
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:21:00 -
[93] - Quote
Deerin wrote:First!
Edit: Now that I've read them:
They suck. The price difference is not worth the changes
[...]
Drake has NO damage bonus. It will be out damaged by regular drakes AND it loses resist bonus, which is the strongest bonus in game imo. So in total I believe Drake NI will be....meh at best.
Brutix is in a good spot. It is now more fleet oriented. This post made me laugh so much.
These ships are great. Good price point, great performance; I especially like the Drake. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:22:00 -
[94] - Quote
May Wanderdriven wrote:Yes, I do realize that, and I think that the ship could have a much greater variety with a cap bonus instead of a tracking bonus. Reason being that I CAN put a TC in the mid, but I can go for E-War or more webs (or something else), and then I don't have to worry as much about cap. Why should I be forced to stay with the cap booster?
Oh and Mr Floydy, the Harbinger has a 10% reduction in Medium Energy Weapon capacitor need.
Wait, what? There would be more variety if it had the same bonus as the basic Harbinger? what in the actual hell are you on about? Do you realise what variety means?
I'm fully aware that the Harbinger has a 10% cap bonus for lasers, that is my point in it's entirety. The Navy Harbinger is rightfully different, it offers a different twist on the ship to the T1 version. It's great that the faction versions aren't just mirroring the T1 bonuses with more HP like Navy ships used to. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
235
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:24:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:BRUTIX NAVY ISSUE
This vessel is an iteration over the regular version. The Armor Repairer amount bonus has been swapped for a 7.5% Medium Hybrid Turret tracking bonus per level, another low slot has been added and it is a bit more maneuverable as well.
GÇó Gallente Battlecruiser skill bonuses: +10% to medium hybrid turret damage and 7.5% bonus to medium hybrid turret tracking per level GÇó Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 7 L, 6 turrets, 0 launchers GÇó Fittings: 1235 PWG, 455 CPU GÇó Defense (shields / armor / hull): 5250 / 6750 / 7125 GÇó Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 3000 / 789 s / 3.8 GÇó Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704 / 11875000 / 11.6 s GÇó Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50 GÇó Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7 GÇó Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric GÇó Signature radius: 305
So this is why you kept the crappy armor rep bonus on the Brutix... I can understand that, but the t1 Brutix still has only one useful bonus and, IMHO, should have gotten this (or 4% resist per level) instead.
Until active armor repping is fixed, if it ever will be fixed that is, I really don't see the point to keep inferior (and thus often unused) bonuses on ships.
Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
May Wanderdriven
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:27:00 -
[96] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:May Wanderdriven wrote:Yes, I do realize that, and I think that the ship could have a much greater variety with a cap bonus instead of a tracking bonus. Reason being that I CAN put a TC in the mid, but I can go for E-War or more webs (or something else), and then I don't have to worry as much about cap. Why should I be forced to stay with the cap booster?
Oh and Mr Floydy, the Harbinger has a 10% reduction in Medium Energy Weapon capacitor need. Wait, what? There would be more variety if it had the same bonus as the basic Harbinger? what in the actual hell are you on about? Do you realise what variety means? I'm fully aware that the Harbinger has a 10% cap bonus for lasers, that is my point in it's entirety. The Navy Harbinger is rightfully different, it offers a different twist on the ship to the T1 version. It's great that the faction versions aren't just mirroring the T1 bonuses with more HP like Navy ships used to.
so you suggest that forcing you to stick a cap booster in the mid will increase fitting variety? I don't see how. |
Mr Dobalina
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:28:00 -
[97] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Mr Dobalina wrote:Aggghhhh why the hell do you guys keep using a cammo paint scheme on spaceships? It doesn't make them any less visible in space. To convey the sense that these are vessels redesigned by military entities. Has nothing to do with visibility.
What space fairing military ****** would paint a ship cammo? I'm pretty sure the guns attached to the hull are enough to demonstrate what the people who designed it had in mind. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
638
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:35:00 -
[98] - Quote
Mr Dobalina wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Mr Dobalina wrote:Aggghhhh why the hell do you guys keep using a cammo paint scheme on spaceships? It doesn't make them any less visible in space. To convey the sense that these are vessels redesigned by military entities. Has nothing to do with visibility. What space fairing military ****** would paint a ship cammo? I'm pretty sure the guns attached to the hull are enough to demonstrate what the people who designed it had in mind. Guns are present regardless of the manufacturer, so I'm not sure what you are getting at there. |
AnJuan Jackson
The Crimson Undead
52
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:39:00 -
[99] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:I am terrible at this game but... dat FI cane... is it our old beloved cane we used to cause whine threads with in the past? :)
I've always wanted a T2 Cane, but I guess this will have to do. I'm in.
Edit: SHUT UP AND TAKE MY ISK CCP!! |
Svodola Darkfury
Heaven's End League of Infamy
156
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:41:00 -
[100] - Quote
All of these are great, except for this:
The Brutix Faction variant is un-needed. All the other ships are previous Tier 2 ships, and therefore have no Tech 2 variant.
Faction Myrmidon needs to be the Faction choice, as the Brutix faction will suffer in the same way as the Stabber-> Stabber Fleet -> vagabond conundrum.
Svo. |
|
Major Killz
185
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:42:00 -
[101] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:It seems like the drake navy issue has exceptionally poor fitting,
At all level 5, it has 1100 PG 687.5 CPU.
for a bare-bones fit, say DCU2, 10mn MWD, and 8 HML2's, DCU II - 1PG, 30 CPU Experimental 10mn MWD - 150PG, 50 CPU 8 HML2 @ AWU 5. 756PG, 330.4 CPU
that leaves 193 PG 227.1 CPU
which is enough for only 1 LSE, making the Drake navy issue considerably more fragile than the regular drake. this is also only enough CPU for 2 hardeners and 2 BCS's with 13 CPU left over for 1 low and 2 mids.
What about a HAM fit? same DCU II, and experimental 10mn MWD 8 HAM 2@AWU 5, 813PG, 300 CPU
that leaves 136 PG 307.5 CPU
The good news here is that there is spare CPU to fit 2 invuln and 2 BCS, and web+scram. The bad news is that unless you have BOTH AWU5 and Shield upgrades 5, forget about fitting a LSE to your 170million faction ship.
The drake was always tight on fitting, and there is no way to cram 2 extra launchers onto 80 extra PG and 50 extra CPU.
Without AWU 2, you won't be able to fit an LSE on the HML version either. The navy drake will be less shooty, less bulky, and overall a complete waste of money over the regular drake.
335 damage per second and no drones(caldari navy ammunition); setup just under 700 CPU, under 1050 PG (All level 5); 50 - 65,000 effective hit-points; 400 damage per second and no drones (advanced damage ammunition); 1,200 meters per second.
You could do something like 1400 meters a second with 2 overdrive injectors. You can also do a Heavy assault missile version but it is TIGHT.
Note: this is all an estimation.
Nanofiber Internal Structure II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Caldari Navy Large Shield Extender Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Core Defense Field Extender I Core Defense Field Extender I Core Defense Field Extender I
- killz |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:44:00 -
[102] - Quote
May Wanderdriven wrote:so you suggest that forcing you to stick a cap booster in the mid will increase fitting variety? I don't see how.
You run out of cap with a standard Harbinger if you do anything more than just fire the lasers. Even a long point tips you over that edge. It's a laser ship, you can't expect it to be permanently cap stable whilst running everything.
In order for Amarr to have a valid laser ship that could continue to fight for longer than brief bursts without using any cap booster it would need a hell of a lot more than a 50% bonus to laser usage. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like to see one Amarr ship capable of this.
But for the meantime, I'd much rather have an Amarr ship that isn't an Abaddon that has 2 bonuses to using it's weapons, rather than 1 bonus plus the ability to make it slightly easier to shoot. |
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
147
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:51:00 -
[103] - Quote
Why are navy BCs necessary? I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Major Killz
185
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 20:52:00 -
[104] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Why are navy BCs necessary?
This^ |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
48
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:02:00 -
[105] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Aliventi wrote:This Navy drake is going to be so be OP. No longer restricted to just kinetic damage. Velocity bonus (Kiting HAM drake anyone?) and excellent damage projection against smaller targets? Simply beyond winning. Congrats, you'll have a drake that can kill cruisers and perhaps take on frigates. But last time I checked, 8 launchers with no bonus is lower DPS than 6 launchers with 50% bonus when using the correct ammo. Hurray, you can use EM/explosive ammo now, and still do less DPS than the recently nerfed drakes. I'm missing the OP part.... Sorry Sweetheart, there is more to a ship than just DPS and tank.
The sheer power of being able to use any ammo type is something very few (raven, caracal, drones) ships can do. Yeah, you had a bonus to kinetic damage, but a lot of that bonus was being taken away by higher natural kinetic resists and ships fit with kinetic hardiners to specifically counter the drake.
On top of that HAMs hit poorly and have very restricted range. The DPS that is actually applied will be similar to the current drake once the explosion radius bonus is taken in to effect. Even better it will allow you to smoke frigs that can speed/sig tank a drake, and hit sig tanking cruisers better. And ships that hope to out range the HAMs will have some trouble.
This ship is so OP in the right hands. It's going to be nuts when these hit the server. Although I do wish for a bit more fitting freedom. Not like it will matter much. If I am paying 250+ mil isk for a navy BC I can afford to pimp it a little. |
Aliventi
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
48
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:05:00 -
[106] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:Why are navy BCs necessary? This^ Why are navy BS, cruiser, frigs necessary? tbh they aren't. But those of us that PvP are more than willing to spend a little more for a better ships. Risk/reward at it's finest.
Just wait for the pirate faction BCs. Those are going to be fantastic. |
GeneralNukeEm
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:08:00 -
[107] - Quote
Why does the Navy Brutix have a higher signature radius than the Navy Drake? |
Reagalan
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:12:00 -
[108] - Quote
Those Navy Brutix bonuses are what the regular T1 Brutix should have instead of the useless Armor Rep bonus. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3924
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:17:00 -
[109] - Quote
Reagalan wrote:Those Navy Brutix bonuses are what the regular T1 Brutix should have instead of the useless Armor Rep bonus. So you are correctly encouraging them to finish tweaking the adjustments to active armor repping... good, I concur. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
IceDe4d
Kath's Menagerie Gank for Profit
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:22:00 -
[110] - Quote
im sry ccp but i lost you here.... you overpower the brutix and proph very hard and bring out a new navy brutix instead of fixxing the t2 version the astarte and the eos both needing some changes maybe you should check KB stats and find out that a lot of ships are not used very often because they suck in pvp and the funny part is they are pvp ships.
in my opinion focus on balancing and new ideas of how we can make a ship right again is much more important as a faction version of a bc that will be expensive and not worth the price at all.
sometimes im wondering why i skilled commandship to 5......... |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
924
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:26:00 -
[111] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:Why are navy BCs necessary? This^ because people like me prefer grinding standings in multibillion pimpmobiles.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:
335 damage per second and no drones(caldari navy ammunition); setup just under 700 CPU, under 1050 PG (All level 5); 50 - 65,000 effective hit-points; 400 damage per second and no drones (advanced damage ammunition); 1,200 meters per second.
You could do something like 1400 meters a second with 2 overdrive injectors. You can also do a Heavy assault missile version but it is TIGHT.
Note: this is all an estimation.
Nanofiber Internal Structure II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Caldari Navy Large Shield Extender Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Microwarpdrive II Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Core Defense Field Extender I Core Defense Field Extender I Core Defense Field Extender I
- killz
why do have web+scram on a HML drake, which is supposed to stay far away from tackle range?
This fit has 73k EHP, 1003m/s, and 555 DPS, not to mention more than 100 million cheaper, more after insurance.
[Drake, HAM drake] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II Large Shield Extender II EM ward Field II Stasis Webifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
not to mention this fit does not need AWU at all, making it very newbie friendly to fit and fly.
For longer range work
[Drake, fleet drake] Capacitor Power Relay II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
333 DPS, and 90k EHP, you can swap 40 DPS for 10k EHP by dropping a BCS.
The point is, the navy drake cost more than twice as much as a normal drake, and does things minimally better, compared to say, stabber and fleet stabber, hookbill and the t1 frigs, navy omen vs regular omen. Or even the new navy cane vs regular cane.
http://themittani.com -á- your one stop site for all News Eve Related |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
284
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:35:00 -
[113] - Quote
and hello to ye nano drake fleets of olde filling up null sec spamming missiles out to 80km. but wait. It gets better, it's omni damage and able to use Fury missiles effectively.
Didn't we literally just remove these to be replaced with "well you can have two for a PLEX". Not sure I like the meta game this will produce but they will all be fun to fly. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
1184
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:38:00 -
[114] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:Why are navy BCs necessary? We are talking about a computer game. The thing is in and of itself unnecessary and the content in it is completely arbitrary, nothing in the game needs to be there. If there was one, or even two less factions from the games inception you wouldn't think there was anything missing. Would you have argued that destroyers and battlecruisers were unnecessary prior to their introduction into the game? What about T2 ships, or capitals?
Everything in the game is necessary by its very nature as game content arguing that a new type of content is unnecessary is dumb. You might not like it because it causes balance problems or supplants the role of some existing thing then fine but make that argument, not the dumb one you just made.
The fact of the matter is that the game benefits from there being new content, so you're going to have to make a more compelling argument than "It's unnecessary" to convince people that new content, particularly tame new content like new variants of ships is a bad idea. |
Katsami
Sancta Terra
17
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:40:00 -
[115] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:Why are navy BCs necessary? We are talking about a computer game. The thing is in and of itself unnecessary and the content in it is completely arbitrary, nothing in the game needs to be there. If there was one, or even two less factions from the games inception you wouldn't think there was anything missing. Would you have argued that destroyers and battlecruisers were unnecessary prior to their introduction into the game? What about T2 ships, or capitals? Everything in the game is necessary by its very nature as game content arguing that a new type of content is unnecessary is dumb. You might not like it because it causes balance problems or supplants the role of some existing thing then fine but make that argument, not the dumb one you just made. The fact of the matter is that the game benefits from there being new content, so you're going to have to make a more compelling argument than "It's unnecessary" to convince people that new content, particularly tame new content like new variants of ships is a bad idea.
You are arguing from a perspective outside the context of the game.
Inside the game, these new ships do very little to expand combat. They are extremely redundant and under-powered in terms of price.
You are arguing for the addition of anything of that cannot realistically effect the meta, just because it's *new*.
...
Why are these particular ships necessary? |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
284
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:44:00 -
[116] - Quote
I can seriously forsee all the null sec crybears moaning about how Nano Navy Drakes missiles are blotting out the Sun and stars. |
Shingorash
S T R A T C O M THORN Alliance
36
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:47:00 -
[117] - Quote
Mostly this all looks good.
The Harbinger looks perfect, the extra mid slot allows for a cap booster as well as mwd, scram, web tc? The tracking bonus zhould make this a really fun ship to fly. On top on this I have in the past flown shield harbs, again that extra mid slot makes it a viable option.
Drake needs a touch more power grid looking at it. As a HAM kiting ship though it looks perfect, raw dps might be lower but the choice of missiles and explosion radius bonus more than makes up for it. I think some people replying to this thread dont understand damage projection and think a high dps figure means something...
The Hurricane... Take the launchers off and add a turret, perfect ship.
Brutix, ideally a navy myrm would have been better, you could of given it a drone and hybrid bonus, a high dps monster with the midslots to support the damage projection. Using the Brutux hull is a little underwhelming as we have the Astarte, Eos already. It really hould be the Myrm hull...
All in all nice changes, the drake and harb excite me greatly, the other 2 leave me feeling rather underwealmed. |
Ersahi Kir
Freelance Mining Company
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:48:00 -
[118] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:The point is, the navy drake cost more than twice as much as a normal drake, and does things worse or the same, compared to say, stabber and fleet stabber, hookbill and the t1 frigs, navy omen vs regular omen. Or even the new navy cane vs regular cane.
funny thing thou, you need a sensor booster to take advantage of the extended range on those HML's, -1 midslot.
Noobs can't afford to fly navy battlecruisers in PvP any more than they can afford to fly pirate battleships in PvP. When balancing these ships it should be assumed that the fitting skills are no less than 4, including AWU 4.
That being said the drake is interesting because it has better flexibility with assault missiles and damage type, although the maximum damage potential and tank was shaved off a bit. I think the NI drake should ride out the way it is and see how it's doing in a few months after people have some experience with it.
After chewing on the hurricane FI I'm a little bit lukewarm on it. The old hurricane was stellar, but I think making the FI a straight upgrade to the regular hurricane is a little bit...bleh. All the other ships are a slightly different take by giving different bonuses than the regular hull, the hurricane is just a straight copy with an extra high slot. I kind of want the bonuses changed up a little so it does something different. |
Jhan Niber
Risk-Averse PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
19
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:54:00 -
[119] - Quote
If you're going to make the Fleet Hurricane the old Cane, give it back its powergrid as well. The hurricane should have 1350 PG. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
285
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 21:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
I have to agree about the HFI. It's just dull. It's the Hurricane we used to have and no real difference from the standard issue. Don't get me wrong. It's nice and all but just dull.
I say give it an extra turret and drop one of the damage bonuses for a falloff bonus. The SFI already has the tracking bonus. We don't need a bigger SFI but we don't have a fleet issue AC Kiter |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |