Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1025
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:06:00 -
[211] - Quote
Appreciate the focus and agree on two major points, too many ittys and homogenization. That's what is kind of weird to me.
Getting rid of three of the itutysm yeah no value add but they really don't add much any more with the skill changes. But it really doesn't matter to me if they are left in (assuming no new abilities are added as you say).
However, on the homginzation....I disagree that there are really only two aspects. That might be mostly true but there is a lot you can do with those and the fact that null transport is really all about not getting ganked. For instance, a T2 hauler that has the ability to fit a interdiction nullifier...give it either slow as hell align time with tank possibilities are make it paper thin...both with a small cargo m3. I would cross train for that. Add the ability for one T2 industrial to fit micro jump drives. How about a bonus to ECM?
I think you can do a lot here but my perspective is what incentive do I have to cross train to get more choices. If you are thinking from how do we get more options easier, then you probably won't solve the homogenization issue.
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1537
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:08:00 -
[212] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:
The argument is (valid or not):
Skill X unlocks 2 ships. Skill Y unlocks 5. Why do they cost the same?
The cost is time, and while there is a difference per se, the difference would be negliable. Oh, as a Gallente pilot you just need to train Gallente Industrials 1, where as a Minmatar pilot would have to train Gallente Frigate to III before going to Gallente Industrials I? the training difference would still be less than a day, plus it would give the Minmatar pilot the benefit of trying another race (which most will likely do anyways).
No frigate requirement any more :) That was removed in Odyssey.
I did say 'valid or not'. :) Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1025
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:25:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:For people focused on homoginization: The problem here is that we don't have a complex purpose that we are lazily fulfilling by having every ship do it the same way, what we have is a very simple purpose and far too many ships meant to fulfill it. I think the division between the 2 roles outlined here is functional, and adds a bit of depth to a relatively straight forward job, but what many of you are asking for is basically new jobs. As some have mentioned above, adding entirely new purposes to t1 industrials, or subdividing the current one adds a lot of complexity and doesn't even approach the issue of balance within the class we already have and use.
We talked about specialized bays and other unique purposes, but ultimately decided that, for now, it was important to make sure that pilots from races other than Gallente weren't compelled to cross train for an Iteron 5, and also that there was at least one reasonable alternative within your race depending on what purpose you had in mind. We want to improve on industry in general, but that is a much bigger proposition and I don't think t1 industrials is the right starting point. I'll just say that this approach is boring to me. Why does that matter? Because I'm 100mill plus sps now and like many others I know in is situation are at the point where there needs to be more variety to the game to keep me interested. Maybe that doesn't matter, but this 'we want everyone to have the ability to do the same basic function' isn't keeping with the spirit of why I've played this long. You did the same thing to scanning IMO. Specialization, at least at the T2 level, should be about specific jobs. But at the rate you are gong (bombers anyone?) I don't see any point to training other races because ill eventually have the same function as everyone else anyway. Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
539
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:27:00 -
[214] - Quote
Meh, industry in Eve could do with more diversion.
You know, to avoid homogenization of the industrial ships you could perhaps look into making some of them better at carrying certain stuff than others. You know you can make dedicated cargo bays, right?
Say, all ships in the Iteron line get their own Quafe storage bay. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
452
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:30:00 -
[215] - Quote
Stealth gank nerf #17. I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. -áI AM A LOWSEC GANKER, HIGHSEC SCUM, NULLSEC BASTARD, WORMHOLE INVADER. Welcome to, welcome to, welcome to my scramble. GÖÑ |
RoAnnon
Strategic Acquisitions Group Tactical Research Lab
83
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:32:00 -
[216] - Quote
Anika Ataru wrote:...Unless getting people killed by suicide gankers is your intention, hm.
No matter what the Devs say about balance, the bottom line for CCP as a corporation is the bottom line. If they can get more ships destroyed, carrying higher ISK value per KM, the more likely people will buy plex to replace their stuff.
So, you're a bounty hunter. No, that ain't it at all. Then what are you? I'm a bounty hunter. |
Alkyria Decile
Delstar Corp
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:32:00 -
[217] - Quote
On the topic of the itteron 2-4, would they ever be considered for a "buy out" by ore? Slightly larger project than just switching stats, easier than brand new art. Could rationalize it by ore expanding quickly into the commercial market, and needing new assembly lines quickly so they buy the itty designs and re-purpose them.
Could have an ore/mineral hauler an ice hauler, or any other specialized role for that matter, and a generic all purpose hauler if you'd rather train ore than one of the major factions.
|
Kraschyn Thek'athor
Asgard Ammunitions
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:34:00 -
[218] - Quote
I would wish more diversity. You try to avoid the Shitstorm, by not taking and giving stuff for diversity.
Make one allrounder Industrial for every race. In the range of the current Mammoth.
Make an bigger transport, a lot less tank bulk carrier (Iteron V). Something that can carry more, but is gank vulnerable.
Make an specialised PI and PI Products Transport.
Make an big Ice Product Carrier. javascript:if%20(typeof%20posting=='undefined'||posting!=true)%20{posting=true;__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$PostReply','');}
A Industrial with an big ship maintenance hangar for transporting ships.
.....
Make an Industrial with Highslots for 6x Small Weapons. Doesn't matter if you think there is a role. Give people stuff to experiment, to try new stuff.
Be creative.
Let us choose!
You're risk adversiv, and that is boring! |
Lister Vindaloo
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:35:00 -
[219] - Quote
So the Caldari get their Ewar cruiser but the Gallente don't get specialist haulers? That sounds fair. You've got 5 hulls there that you've stated you want to keep for historical reasons, yet you don't want to do anything interesting with them? What a wasted opportunity. You can add a few other specialist haulers later but you won't need to because any one who actually wants to fly a hauler will spend the paltry time necessary to access the specialist ones.
I realize these are only haulers but why waste a rebalance? Do it properly the first time. |
Nex Killer
Drunk3n Warfare
41
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:49:00 -
[220] - Quote
Be cool when they do the T2 rebalance they make one into a mini JF it has half the cargo hold and can jump half the distance. :D |
|
Jattila Vrek
Push Industries Push Interstellar Network
2
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:50:00 -
[221] - Quote
One thing I remember from being a new player is that the rigs were prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than the ship. I'd love to see the smaller ship not only being more agile, but also being a cheaper 'small' class ship that uses small rigs. It wouldn't necessarily need to have more tank - that's what the tech II DST is for. Next step would be to introduce battlehip sized haulers that fit between freighters and the normal haulers. |
FishySquirrel
Shrubbery Acquisitions
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 20:54:00 -
[222] - Quote
Well at least it gives me a reason to reprocess my mammoths, I guess >.> |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
2508
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:12:00 -
[223] - Quote
ALL RIGHT! These are really good changes, CCP. The 2 slots high on the indys is a great idea... I think that was needed. Probably the best change but it's nice to see the capacity get a little bump there too. Now people can fit more loot in their hold which is good for gatecampers too.
I still think there's some good opportunity here to add another class of hauler though. I think you should offer something like a mini-freighter class, with 50k-100k m3 capacity, maneuverability like a freighter, but with one high, 2 mid, and 1 low slot(s), no rigs. Put the build reqs at the equivalent of 80 Iteron V's, and add a new skill. That's my friendly advice... for what it's worth. There's a gap for new players between transport ships and freighters that's pretty huge. I think a mini-freighter would balance that out and give haulers a more linear path to freighters and JFs. Doing this could also help spread the markets out in empire a lot more. Areas of empire far flung from Jita, Rens, and Amarr are thin because in oder for it to be worth it for traders they need to mark up items quite a bit, which keeps people making the trek to Jita to buy bulk goods. If logistics was less of an issue, I think it would encourage more people to train up Tycoon IV or V and put up more orders at lower prices, which would encourage laziness and thus more volume in sales in these further flung areas... then the economy might get a little healthier around the periphery.
So... is that something that makes sense to you CCP? Or no?
|
Mirta Vanderkill
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:13:00 -
[224] - Quote
In terms of adding new industrial roles, why not have some of the 'in-between' ships serve alternative roles?
For example:
Iteron I: "Box TrucK", As is, Smaller Cargo Capacity, but good tank & Agility.
Iteron II: "Pickup Truck", Smallest cargo capacity, Excellent Agility, Excellent Speed. Autopiloter's wet dream.
Iteron III: "Dump Truck", Minimal Cargo hold (~100m3) Massive Ore Bay, designed for use in mining gangs as a mobile jet can.
Iteron IV: "Car Carrier", Minimal Cargo Hold, ~50-100k carrier-style ship bay, for moving ship hulls to market
Iteron V: "Commercial Truck", As is, Largest Cargo Capacity at the cost of all else.
These are the roles I've seen used with T1 haulers that aren't covered anywhere else. Obviously, carry similar changes throughout the races as appropriate, adding 2-3 more haulers each. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:27:00 -
[225] - Quote
Mammoth should be the largest minmatar hauler. It also looks better too
Now it doesn't really matter which races haulers you train, they are all the same. Great job...
Honestly the users here on forums come up with more creative ideas for haulers... |
Davion Falcon
Those Once Loyal
56
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:28:00 -
[226] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
First, something kind of simple: why the Hoarder instead of the Mammoth? This basically comes down to art direction. At earlier stages in this rebalance we considered both removing some ships from the game, and also adding more. Part of that discussion led to art asking that we use the Hoarder rather than the Mammoth as one of the primary Minmatar industrials.
Isn't this the same art team that thought removing the frills from the Vagabond was a good idea? That alone should tip you off when there's community backlash against replacing the Mammoth with the Hoarder. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven. |
Edward Lessingham
Independent Traders and Builders
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:29:00 -
[227] - Quote
I use the Mammoth almost exclusively. I'm not opposed to logical rebalancing and repurposing, but why leapfrog the Hoarder over the Mammoth? Why not just adjust each as you see fit and not disturb "the order". I don't want to have to buy a whole new fleet of haulers in order to maximize my hauling capabilities -- especially if its only for 'artistic' reasons. If you must do this, then allow us to swap our Mammoths for the new Hoarders (gratis). While you're into cosmetic overhauls, the poor old Wreathe could use a facelift. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
36
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:34:00 -
[228] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:I'll try to get a meeting tomorrow with Art and see if we can reach an agreement about the Mammoth. I'm kind of surprised so few of you like the Hoarder though, its pretty hilarious looking.
Look for a post with final word sometime tomorrow.
i support the hoarder over the mammoth !
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
557
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 21:42:00 -
[229] - Quote
Jattila Vrek wrote:One thing I remember from being a new player is that the rigs were prohibitively expensive, much more expensive than the ship. I'd love to see the smaller ship not only being more agile, but also being a cheaper 'small' class ship that uses small rigs. It wouldn't necessarily need to have more tank - that's what the tech II DST is for. Next step would be to introduce battlehip sized haulers that fit between freighters and the normal haulers. I would really like to see a frigate-sized hauler that can haul maybe 2000-3000m3 of cargo at maximum, but would be slightly tanky (in proportion to its size of course) and would have not only a very fast align time but would also have a high max velocity. When fitted with a 1MN MWD, it should be able to go around 1500-2000m/s.
Howabout 3 size classes of industrial, 6 total industrials per race?
FRIGATE INDUSTRIALS * fast-aligning hauler with high structure HP, low sig radius, around 15-20MW powergrid, and around 5000-6000 max cargo * fast-aligning, fast-moving tanky type with low sig radius, around 30-40MW powergrid, and around 2000-2500 max cargo
CRUISER INDUSTRIALS * medium hauler with high structure HP, around 70-90MW powergrid, and around 20,000-25,000 max cargo - * AMARR: fitting service hauler with bonus to cap transfer, fitting service, and a 15,000m3 module bay - * CALDARI: refueling ship with bonus to cap transfer and a 25,000m3 fuel bay that can carry POS fuel blocks and all refined ice components - * GALLENTE: ore hauler with 40,000m3 ore and tritanium bay - * MINMATAR: ship carrier with 250,000m3 ship maintenance bay
BATTLESHIP INDUSTRIALS * max space hauler with high structure HP, around 200-300MW powergrid, and around 100,000-125,000 max cargo * defense/combat hauler with almost full battleship HP and slots, racial defense skill bonus, around 4000-5000MW powergrid, 5-6 high slots with turrets/launchers (fits medium weapons), drone bay/bandwidth (with a lot of extra drone room), and 20,000-25,000 max cargo Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Ersahi Kir
Infinite Mobility SpaceMonkey's Alliance
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:03:00 -
[230] - Quote
I honestly like the look of the hoarder more, but if you're going to axe one of the minmatar industrials it should be the horder. The mammoth really is the iconic minmatar hauler.
I still would like to know why industrials are sporting ~1k CPU when they simply can't use it all. |
|
Ryelek d'Entari
The 4th Legion SQUEE.
87
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:08:00 -
[231] - Quote
Glaring problems not addressed in the rebalance:
(1) CPU. Why the ridiculous CPU on these ships? Give them real CPU and force us to make decisions regarding cloak/shield/MWD/etc. I know there's some "history" here about non-implemented industrial support modules, but now is the time to fix it.
(2) Hoarder vs Mammoth. There are plenty of rigged mammoths out there that will become inferior. Rigged hoarders? Not so much. If the art dept likes the model of the hoarder so much then switch the models on the ships. I guarantee you that the percentage of people who care about their tugboat's model is vastly less than the percentage of people who care that their rigged mammoth hauls less than it used to.
(3) 1 high slot on all the high-cargo industrials is terrible for wormholers. Give them the option to fit both a probe launcher and a cloak. Again you can use CPU limitations to force them to make tradeoffs.
(4) Fails to address the problem that armor tanking a hauler is foolish. And with the penalty to structure that expanded cargoholds incur, putting a DCU on any hauler is a waste of a slot. Recognize that all these ships should always be shield tanked, and design accordingly. These new Amarr haulers in particular have ridiculously tiny base shields.
(5) Nobody puts guns on haulers. There's no situation in which it's even remotely the right thing to do.
Other observations:
Why is the Badger1 2/5/5 slot layout? You went and differentiated the bestower/badger2 in the big-indy class by their slot layouts, but right now the sigil is the only weird outlier in the small-indy class.
These changes, combined with tiericide, don't really make pumping the skills for these industrials very attractive. 5%/level is not much considering they are rank4 skills. Please consider dropping the base capacity and increasing the skill bonus to 7.5% or 10% per level to encourage (and reward) those who have trained high skills in these ships. (which does not include me, btw, I have only level 3) |
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:16:00 -
[232] - Quote
Alphax45 wrote:Isn't 4,5,6 covered by the Orca? 4, 5 and 6 are covered by the Orca, but the feeling was at some point we'd get an industrial with at least a fleet hangar to serve as an empire ship taxi without needing any mining skills at all. Many more people have a need to move ships around than miners, and many of those people don't even like mining which results in wasted SP for a role they have no interest in playing. I'd like something smaller than a carrier to haul ships around highsec every once in a while. I have no need for an ore bay.
Differentiation was expected with the T1 industrial rebalancing effort. I have great respect for the enormous amount of work that has gone into tiericide and ship rebalancing, but these changes are nothing more than casual tweaks. It's like Rise walked into Fozzie's cubicle on Monday morning and said, "Fozzie, we have to get these industrial ships out of the way for once and for all," and they were done by lunchtime. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
173
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:17:00 -
[233] - Quote
Hoarder over Mammoth...are you serious?
If you do decide to go down this route (don't listen to the arty farty types) then how will the Mammoths that have Rigs be addressed? I have rigged Mammoths that, if replaced by the Hoarder, I wouldn't want to use and would switch but I'd like to know that I'd have my Rigs returned rather than losing them if I repro'd all my Mammoths due to an 'Art Department' change. My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Alina Coppola
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:17:00 -
[234] - Quote
All industrials looks the same because they all have too many slots and fitting and have their fits converge.
There is far too much CPU everywhere
If you have enough grid for cloak + mwd trick, tank is irrelevant
If you have lots of lows, you can manipulate cargo/mobility characteristics to fit what you are doing
The highslot constraint is interesting as we can see from responses. The WH folks need 2 slots while many players don't, this is a working differential point for ships.
Imagine the industrial line with ships each having 4 slots total (with a increase in base stats in different directions) and how radically different each ship would be used. |
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
100
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:23:00 -
[235] - Quote
Ryelek d'Entari wrote:Glaring problems not addressed in the rebalance:
(1) CPU. Why the ridiculous CPU on these ships? Give them real CPU and force us to make decisions regarding cloak/shield/MWD/etc. I know there's some "history" here about non-implemented industrial support modules, but now is the time to fix it.
(2) Hoarder vs Mammoth. There are plenty of rigged mammoths out there that will become inferior. Rigged hoarders? Not so much. If the art dept likes the model of the hoarder so much then switch the models on the ships. I guarantee you that the percentage of people who care about their tugboat's model is vastly less than the percentage of people who care that their rigged mammoth hauls less than it used to.
(3) 1 high slot on all the high-cargo industrials is terrible for wormholers. Give them the option to fit both a probe launcher and a cloak. Again you can use CPU limitations to force them to make tradeoffs.
(4) Fails to address the problem that armor tanking a hauler is foolish. And with the penalty to structure that expanded cargoholds incur, putting a DCU on any hauler is a waste of a slot. Recognize that all these ships should always be shield tanked, and design accordingly. These new Amarr haulers in particular have ridiculously tiny base shields.
(5) Nobody puts guns on haulers. There's no situation in which it's even remotely the right thing to do.
With these points, I'd also like to address the myth of the "tanky" hauler that seems to be on CCP mind. A tanky hauler is pretty worthless when it gets caught. Doesn't matter if that ship has 2000 EHP or 2 million EHP, if it can't destroy aggressing ships, then it's just another victim.
|
Taleden
North Wind Local no. 612
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:30:00 -
[236] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:With these points, I'd also like to address the myth of the "tanky" hauler that seems to be on CCP mind. A tanky hauler is pretty worthless when it gets caught. Doesn't matter if that ship has 2000 EHP or 2 million EHP, if it can't destroy aggressing ships, then it's just another victim.
I think the idea is to differentiate some of the haulers on the number of Tornado volleys they can survive. Right now, most haulers die to a single Tornado which means they can't carry more than ~150m before being gank bait. A "tanky" hauler only needs 15-20k EHP and suddenly it can carry 300m before being attractive to a two-Tornado gank squad.
But there's also an idea earlier in this thread to have an actual combat-worthy industrial; something with pretty serious tank but a smaller (or maybe ammo-only) cargo bay which could be used to resupply a fleet mid-battle. Not sure how often such a thing would actually be used, but it was an idea anyway. |
Josilin du Guesclin
University of Caille Gallente Federation
90
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:37:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:honestly, just remove all indies from the game and put in i set of Ore manufactured haulers. Some of us like this option a lot - unfortunately it would mean doing the same for all t2 haulers and all t1/t2 freighters, which would be A: A giant commitment in terms of art asset creation, B: A waste of assets that already exist and C: would probably be hated by a lot of players because of how much flavor and history it would remove from the game.
It makes no logical sense, either. The haulers pre-date all the ORE ships, and the idea that the k-space empires would all use ships from an outside entity for the most basic of functions is just daft.
|
Orakkus
Winds of Dawn Kraken.
100
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:39:00 -
[238] - Quote
Taleden wrote: I think the idea is to differentiate some of the haulers on the number of Tornado volleys they can survive. Right now, most haulers die to a single Tornado which means they can't carry more than ~150m before being gank bait. A "tanky" hauler only needs 15-20k EHP and suddenly it can carry 300m before being attractive to a two-Tornado gank squad.
Yeah, I understand that point, but the usual response to those situations has always been to add another ship, which then put the argument back to the inevitable pointlessness of focusing on industrials being strictly "tanky". |
Melek D'Ivri
Wheel Tappers And Shunters
20
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:42:00 -
[239] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:switch the mammoth with the hoarder please. No one wants to fly that ugly monstrosity called the hoarder and it wouldn't make sense that the mastodon has a mammoth hull otherwise.
I actually quite enjoy the hoarder..... but he does have a point about the mammoth/mastodon.
To the OP [CCP]
- Iteron mark IV is the Occator hull isn't it?, so maybe give the IV the V layout and make the V the oddball? - whichever Minmatar ship ends up being the odd man out could very nicely be reskinned into a generic (not ORE, see below) hauler availbile from one of the NPC hauling and shuttling corps, think Interbus, etc - use 2 of the Gallente ships to make ORE specialized mining hauler / planetary interaction / Maybe even salvage hauler ships
ORE Industrials reskins (since ore ships are basically Gallente by nature anyway!) * Iteron mark III might make a good companion to the much neglected Primae as a PI collection vehicle * Iteron mark II might make a good companion to the Noctis, maybe some extra highs and a bonus to salvage/tractor, but some special role in this trade - or could even make this a hacking specialized ship, IE give it and it only the ability to grab multiple cans in the hacking "minigame" * Iteron mark IV or V would be a good ore hauler ship, think here single link Orca with a small fleet bay? no ability to haul ships and a small true cargo bay would be perfect for this.
Minmatar Repurpose * make the Mammoth (or Hoarder) a ship of purpose otuside of the normal hauling game. It make be able to make its debut as the first Angel hauler? Do it! Factions needs hauler too afterall...... could segue very well into CCP's future plans to have skill books for:
Faction Frigate Faction Destroyer Faction Cruiser Faction Battlecruiser Faction Battleship Faction Industrial
|
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
78
|
Posted - 2013.06.19 22:49:00 -
[240] - Quote
Punctator wrote:iteron m5 was always the best industral, now it will be little ****. wtf? and someone could call it good change? iteron makes proud its owner in old days - now every industrial will be the same - it is realy **** this unification. I'm loving the Itty V pilot tears, keep 'em coming!
Look, you trained Gallente industrial 5 for a certain amount of cargo space. It was the largest available for many years. If Amarr indy pilots wanted that same cargo space all they had to do was crosstrain Gallente Industrial 5. Itty V loses NOT A SINGLE M3 OF CARGO SPACE. And now if Gallente pilots want "the best" they have to crosstrain Amarr Industrial 5. Things change and you are literally crying massive tears because of :chage: even though you lose nothing yourself. Awesome tears. Would you like some cheese with that whine? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |