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 - 3 post(s) |
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
77
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 10:44:24 -
[301] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:You and I will have to disagree on our definitions of "applies well". I don't know about that. For example, I think we'd both agree that rapid light missile launchers, as weapons designed for larger ships to shoot smaller ones, apply quite well to frigates even though afterburning frigates can mitigate quite a lot of light missile damage. Would you say that's fair? |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1446
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 10:55:56 -
[302] - Quote
Do you think torps apply well? Because that's what we're talking about here, not rapid lights.
I mean, even changing the linked machariel to a MWD, you'll do 55.3%. A microwarping battleship.
I realise many of these situations are ships going for mitigation and survival, but that is the essence of medium and up sized conflicts, just as the essence of small gang things are speed and agility over buffer.
Small gang impact needed adjustment, but with the changes as slated it's a pretty huge impact across the board. We need not throw the baby out with the bathwater which is what is dangerously close here.
And in fact, the application buff to the turrets is still probably too strong vs small things. It's the worst of all worlds |
Ellecon Yvormes
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 11:23:28 -
[303] - Quote
I absolutely love the changes. I am very glad CCP reacted quickly to the absolute menace that are fighters in their current form. The answer to smallgang pvp was just to 1/2 shot everything anywhere on grid with a single carrier sometimes even without giving them any chance to warp out
It was completely out of line
With the changes Carriers are being brought back in line and they fit their role
- High sustained dps to cruiser+ sized target
- Fast locking + applied damage anywhere on field
- No requirement to siege
Every carrier pilot that is losing their instablap ability to anything frigate - battleship sized is ofcourse crying over it. I want my insta I win button baaaack |
Troubled Basterd
Island Life Capitalist Bastards Chained Reactions
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 11:58:38 -
[304] - Quote
I hope you guys agree on this:
The Phoenix uses a low amount of BS sized torpedoes, the HAW nag and moros use massive amounts of XL ammo. Hail XL is 12 times the price of Hail L. Void XL is 30 times more expensive then L ....
Pleas change the ammo size to L on all dreads!
Thanks for the extra PG on the nag, but it should be 99K not 80....
Tb o/
ps: For now its still ECM the fighters!!! Dont you just love getting hot dropped by a falcon and poof, useless heaps of space trash.... |
Ayallah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
505
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 12:03:40 -
[305] - Quote
The "majority" of DPS being in F1 is a bit of a misrepresentation. Its only barely over half of the DPS. That said, the direction of changes are good and in the correct spirit.
After it comes out on sisi I will have to see how it flies. maybe a buff to F1 DPS )))) But we'll see if thats needed even, shouldn't be. |
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 12:39:47 -
[306] - Quote
Well I've got 35 mil EHP for shield vs 42 mil for armor. And that is not including armor bonus from Bus itself, which brings us to 40 vs 54 mil.
That doesnt mean I'm against nerfing CSE, I just dont find that argument valid. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1450
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 12:56:00 -
[307] - Quote
Ain't mine. Ask capri. I recall there are later ones which are even more hilarious. |
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
79
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 13:04:24 -
[308] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Do you think torps apply well? Because that's what we're talking about here... Not really - while torps and the new rocket salvo have very similar explosion velocities and radii once skills are accounted for, the salvo has a much lower damage reduction factor (3 rather than 5), which means it applies significantly better to smaller targets than torps do - for example, torpedoes with two precision-scripted guidance comps would get around 25% damage application to your linked AB mach whereas the salvo with two omnis gets around 36%. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1450
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 13:12:10 -
[309] - Quote
Yup, I'm aware. I still believe they're going to be a bit too nasty vs light subcaps (the turrets are going to trash them) and yet they have been diminished at the fleet scale. I'd hoped for a little improvement at the larger end of the spectrum and weakening at the small scale. The small side is still hella, hella strong and the large is weaker than before.
I'd have rather seen the salvo alpha smoothed, lower (but not this low) application and some more dps rolled into the guns (not application) to more effectively threaten bigger hulls and let the smaller ones breath a little. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 14:54:20 -
[310] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Well I've got 35 mil EHP for shield vs 42 mil for armor. And that is not including armor bonus from Bus itself, which brings us to 40 vs 54 mil. That doesnt mean I'm against nerfing CSE, I just dont find that argument valid.
I personally suspect the CSE nerf is more about smaller engagements, like Wormholes or Faction Warfare, PvE fittings of various types, and potential off-brand Battleship fits than it is large capital fights.
That said, given the amount of dislike the CSE changes are getting I'm wondering if people wouldn't feel better about a similar Shield Recharge penalty being added to the CSE rather than the proposed 10% shield amount nerf. That would leave Shield Caps in a better position for those big fleet fights, but nerf them basically everywhere else that I can think of and remove the big concern that large Shield Buffer tanks generally create.
Thoughts, comments? |
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
287
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 16:45:31 -
[311] - Quote
CCP, while you're at it. Could you include "can be fitted to capitals only" line in showinfo window of CSE and capital plates? Like you did for capital prop modules. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 16:52:19 -
[312] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:CCP, while you're at it. Could you include "can be fitted to capitals only" line in showinfo window of CSE and capital plates? Like you did for capital prop modules.
Woops, my mistake, correcting my post. Thought you could actually fit Cap modules to smaller ships x.x |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
19
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 17:17:04 -
[313] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: These are extremely low numbers. Particularly dismaying are the sub battleship fleet hulls regularly seen. Obviously support can be factored in, but out of the box for a carrier using two of the only application mods effectively available these numbers are horribly low given it has no other role in life but shooting smaller things. You're completely ignoring the fact that the fighters' primary weapons, which provide the majority of a carrier's dps, will apply perfectly to most of those targets even without omnis. If you're concerned about fleet-level application with the rocket salvo, you or another member of your fleet can easily bring a few painters and long-range webs along, exactly as you would for any other large ship weapon system. e: it's also worth noting that most of your cases involve ships with afterburners, although you don't see fit to mention that. Complaining that you don't get perfect application without support against smaller ships that have been specifically fit to mitigate incoming damage seems a little daft, to say the least. Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 17:51:35 -
[314] - Quote
Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff.
How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate?
At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones. |
Jessie McPewpew
U2EZ
19
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 18:47:09 -
[315] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones. They never had full damage application against cruisers not to talk of frigates. The alpha was just so high, it didn't matter. Regardless, fighters really shouldn't have a problem hitting any subcap for close to full damage since they are vulnerable. That's the price they pay for the very good application. |
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc. Asteria Concord.
30
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:02:38 -
[316] - Quote
Jessie McPewpew wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones. They never had full damage application against cruisers not to talk of frigates. The alpha was just so high, it didn't matter. Regardless, fighters really shouldn't have a problem hitting any subcap for close to full damage since they are vulnerable. That's the price they pay for the very good application.
^^this^^
imo, the fighters being exactly that, bloody fighters. craft smaller than frigates should have perfect application for their guns on all ships. they are small nimble, weak and vulnerable gunboats that get right up in your face, they should do their normal dps just fine across the board. the rocket salvo alpha was pretty high, and should have been lowered, with the number of salvos usable before reload raised to compensate to keep the dps even. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
590
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:18:52 -
[317] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:The direction certainly, but the degree is, imo, too far. Unless my math is wrong, this is the new state of affairs. NB this is with two omnis running, not something every carrier has the luxury of. These are samples of typical fits I've seen in recent times. Sig/velocity can be seen. Target Sig Vel %Base damage applied Proteus 176 495 34.2% Linked Proteus 115 581 23.4% Scimi 620 2068 30.6% Linked Scimi 406 2597 20.1% Basi 147 575 27.6% Linked Basi 96.3 676 19.0% Armor Mach 350 491 53.5% Linked Armor Mach 229 584 36.4% Armor phoon 330 359 63.1% Armor phoon linked 216 424 43.1% Rattlesnake (MWD off) 530 118 100.0% Rattlesnake (MWD on) 2814 863 100.0% Rattlesnake (MWD off) Linked 347 118 100.0% Rattlesnake (MWD on) Linked 1843 1088 93.5%
These are extremely low numbers. Particularly dismaying are the sub battleship fleet hulls regularly seen. Obviously support can be factored in, but out of the box for a carrier using two of the only application mods effectively available these numbers are horribly low given it has no other role in life but shooting smaller things. Sorry about formatting, I gave up after a while. I mean, I get small gang was suffering under these, but the changes are horrible at the fleet level. If the rocket salvo can't even apply full DPS to battleships then one has to ask what is the actual point of the rocket salvo ability.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:30:58 -
[318] - Quote
Jessie McPewpew wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones. They never had full damage application against cruisers not to talk of frigates. The alpha was just so high, it didn't matter. Regardless, fighters really shouldn't have a problem hitting any subcap for close to full damage since they are vulnerable. That's the price they pay for the very good application.
Based on these changes I suspect CCP disagrees entirely with this supposition, and the general opinion of the player-base seems to agree, considering the number of times I've heard Carriers referred to as OP in just the last couple of weeks.
More than that you're not really basing your argument on any sort of in-game logic here. You're saying that because the Fighters are small they should apply full damage, but that's saying "because real world logic, therefore game mechanics". If you want a game mechanics change it needs to be rooted in game mechanics, to a large extent.
As things stand it's just not balanced for Fighters to apply full DPS to targets of all sizes. They either end up not doing enough DPS to larger targets or too much to smaller ones. Given that an application change makes sense since that's the same scale that other weapons are balanced on, with Battleship guns being bad at hitting Frigates and only okay at hitting Cruisers without assistance of some kind.
Given that, if you want to argue that this is a bad change we shouldn't be talking in terms of percent changes from where things are currently, since CCP clearly feel that where things are now is a bad place to be, but in terms of absolute numbers like volley, sustained DPS, and burst DPS against various targets.
For example it doesn't matter if something only has 20% application to Frigates if that 20% is still over 20k damage (numbers pulled out of this air, not related to Fighter Damage, for example purposes only). Exactly this sort of relationship is what got us old-school blap-dreads and blap-Titans where very little out of a salvo even glanced the target but was still enough to alpha it off field in one go. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1451
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:33:49 -
[319] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones.
The turrets will shred small things. Absolutely. Exceptions like linked succubus exist, of course but they're going to have a bad time in general.
Meanwhile the dps against big stuff has suffered.
Small things have a better shot at fleeing or catching logi, but that logi will need to be super quick. For the bigger, meatier stuff? Just flat out reduced dps.
So like I say, the direction is good - smooth alpha and push emphasis to sustained turret damage I just think this set of changes is not the best way to achieve it. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:37:43 -
[320] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones. The turrets will shred small things. Absolutely. Exceptions like linked succubus exist, of course but they're going to have a bad time in general. Meanwhile the dps against big stuff has suffered. Small things have a better shot at fleeing or catching logi, but that logi will need to be super quick. For the bigger, meatier stuff? Just flat out reduced dps. So like I say, the direction is good - smooth alpha and push emphasis to sustained turret damage I just think this set of changes is not the best way to achieve it.
Reduced DPS overall, at least without support, seems to be the point.
Out of curiosity what do you think would be the best way to achieve this if not an unassisted application nerf? Leave the application alone and just drop the overall DPS? |
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
92
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:46:34 -
[321] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Reduced DPS overall, at least without support, seems to be the point.
The big problem is: the dps was lowered even WITH support. Carriers are worse against everything now. Just a flat out dmg nerf on everything, combined with an application and alpha nerf.
It was announced as
CCP Larrikin wrote:There are more changes planned. We will be looking at (...) and Light Fighter application / alpha.
But now the flat out damage nerf is even bigger than the application nerf (overall damage is down ~12.5%, and roughly another 10% against small targets). Which seems to miss the point completely. Seriously why? |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 19:57:59 -
[322] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Reduced DPS overall, at least without support, seems to be the point. The big problem is: the dps was lowered even WITH support. Carriers are worse against everything now. Just a flat out dmg nerf on everything, combined with an application and alpha nerf. It was announced as CCP Larrikin wrote:There are more changes planned. We will be looking at (...) and Light Fighter application / alpha. But now the flat out damage nerf is even bigger than the application nerf (overall damage is down ~12.5%, and roughly another 10% against small targets). Which seems to miss the point completely. Seriously why?
You seem to be treating this like CCP don't know what they've done, like they somehow accidentally lowered overall Light Fighter DPS as well as application when that was very clearly intentional. If you have some massive negative effect from all of this then point it out with a coherent argument and numbers to back it up, but just waving around percentages is just going to make whoever at CCP is reading this nod their head and go "yup, that's what we did alright."
The why seems pretty self-explanatory: Light Fighters are too effective. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
994
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 20:10:24 -
[323] - Quote
Shank Ronuken wrote:Bless up for Mr Hyde Maybe instead of crying about the fighter changes you should adapt as the meta changes and HTFU A carrier shouldn't be able to solo dunk a proper gang, maybe you should stop dropping lightly tanked gank carriers and actually have some support. These changes are healthy A carrier could never solo dunk a prepared "proper" gang. They could dunk small gangs of destroyers, T1 cruisers and frigates that turned up expecting an easy kill.
With these changes - The same ships carriers could dunk will now be able to kill a carrier while the carrier has no defense against them. BALANCED?
These changes are healthy - For the whining gankers who want easy kills on a capital ship that was designed specifically to kill subcaps but can now not kill anything smaller than an MWDing cruiser or bigger. God forbid those whiners should roam in space in ships capable of doing something other than ganking.
CCP balance at its all time best - Nerf something that works as intended to satisfy the small minded whiner gankers and their small "gank it" ships.
NB; When exactly is CCP going to fix T3d's (Svipul), especially now they are immune to carrier dps but more than capable of killing them.
PVP in Eve has become - we want to win in our shitfit gank ships while someone in a 2 bil ship just dies to our under prepared cheap as, small gang/k. Worst part is, CCP see this as healthy game play.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Marranar Amatin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
92
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 20:10:40 -
[324] - Quote
considering that the complaint never was too high carrier dps, and that they announced an application/alpha nerf (which coincidentally was what most of the complaining was about), but not a dps nerf, it seems that they really don't know what they have done.
Light fighters were too effective against small targets against frigs and light cruisers due to the alpha and good application, but not against battleships, and definitlely not against capitals. But still their already crappy anti-capital abilities took a strong nerf. |
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
438
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 20:56:33 -
[325] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:considering that the complaint never was too high carrier dps, and that they announced an application/alpha nerf (which coincidentally was what most of the complaining was about), but not a dps nerf, it seems that they really don't know what they have done.
Light fighters were too effective against small targets against frigs and light cruisers due to the alpha and good application, but not against battleships, and definitlely not against capitals. But still their already crappy anti-capital abilities took a strong nerf.
First off you just said they nerfed overall DPS (which seems to be the case from a quick glance back at the last 10+ pages, but I can go get the math if you'd like) as well as alpha. Second, where is it said anywhere that these changes are set in stone at any point? The whole idea is to rebalance things, if what that means changes CCP should not be required to go back and re-edit all other press released to reiterate this.
They even said in the post what they've done:
Quote:General Light Fighters (Templar, Dragonfly, Firbolg, Einherji) have had their basic attack application stats increased and their heavy rocket salvo application & damage stats decreased:
Also back in the original post on the Capital Changes dev blog it's stated that Light Fighters are supposed to be anti-fighter and "Light Damage", not anti-subcap as has been posted in this thread...
Overall this whole "CCP are going against themselves!" line is just ridiculous and I'm amazed that you think it's going to get them to reverse course on their own decision. When has this sort of argument *ever* done anything?
Sgt Ocker wrote:...was designed specifically to kill subcaps but can now not kill anything smaller than an MWDing cruiser or bigger.
...
So, referring back to the original capital rebalance dev-blog, as well as the second dev blog on FAs and modules, I've looked through the entirety of both posts and I can't find a single thing anywhere about Carriers being intended as Sub-Cap killers. Same goes for Light Fighters.
The point of Carriers is supposed to be Fighters, and the point of the various Fighter types is outlined in the individual Fighter descriptions. As said above, Light Fighters are supposed to be anti-Fighter and "Light Damage" not dedicated sub-cap wreckers.
Based on these changes it's pretty clear that that's not something CCP wants them to be either, so we're seeing them pulling things back.
I would say that the people telling you that fielding unsupported Carriers and then expecting them to survive ganks by gangs of ships that are good against carriers have the right of it. That's not something CCP intends, Carriers are not supposed to sit on top of Sub-Caps as any sort of hard-counter to them in a Capital fleet, Capitals are supposed to be supported by other ships in PvP. |
Morrigan LeSante
Black Omega Security The OSS
1451
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 21:50:55 -
[326] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Jessie McPewpew wrote:Actually, the primary weapon is subject to weapon resolution and sucks arse when shooting small stuff. How small is "small stuff" though? Battlecruiser? Cruiser? Destroyer? Frigate? At a certain point Carriers just can't have full damage application against a small target and still be balanced in terms of alpha and DPS against those small targets and larger ones. The turrets will shred small things. Absolutely. Exceptions like linked succubus exist, of course but they're going to have a bad time in general. Meanwhile the dps against big stuff has suffered. Small things have a better shot at fleeing or catching logi, but that logi will need to be super quick. For the bigger, meatier stuff? Just flat out reduced dps. So like I say, the direction is good - smooth alpha and push emphasis to sustained turret damage I just think this set of changes is not the best way to achieve it. Reduced DPS overall, at least without support, seems to be the point. Out of curiosity what do you think would be the best way to achieve this if not an unassisted application nerf? Leave the application alone and just drop the overall DPS?
I understood the goals (perhaps mistakenly) to reduce alpha, particularly to small things. DPS was never listed as a concern that I saw (certainly not that it was too high). It's all been around the spike damage and how much applies to smaller craft.
I think I've said already but maybe it was slack, my choice would be reduced alpha/more charges analogous to the current changes. Application dropping certainly but I'd not have nerfed it so hard battleships mitigate that much. No one was upset about the alpha at that tier. I'd also have slightly increased turret dps whilst reducing rather than improving application so that support was needed to nail small things but larger ships/fights they present a greater threat.
Tl;Dr: smooth alpha (done), make smaller things need support to kill (application buff to turrets is fearsome so this isn't what people hoped for), increase threat level at fleet fights (it's decreased now).
Ed: with regard to the whole carriers vs subcapital thing, we should remember that they're hopeless vs amother capital. They're effectively in the same boat as HAW dreads. It may not be explicitly stated however but to most the intention is clear: good subcapital threat and clearing supers fibos is their role. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
593
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 21:59:24 -
[327] - Quote
Marranar Amatin wrote:considering that the complaint never was too high carrier dps, and that they announced an application/alpha nerf (which coincidentally was what most of the complaining was about), but not a dps nerf, it seems that they really don't know what they have done.
Light fighters were too effective against small targets against frigs and light cruisers due to the alpha and good application, but not against battleships, and definitlely not against capitals. But still their already crappy anti-capital abilities took a strong nerf. Pretty much this.
An application nerf can be and was argued for (although I still think it is too early particularly considering how weak carriers are with other caps of the field).
A overall DPS nerf on the other hand was never argued for and there has been no reasoning as to why it was necessary. All the complaints were based around damage application to cruisers and below.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Best Kept Frozen. LowSechnaya Sholupen
152
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 23:55:58 -
[328] - Quote
Honestly I'm baffled at the DPS nerf combined with the application changes. In my experience, carriers have never had enough DPS against large targets, but were a bit too strong against small stuff with the volley. Now they're even worse against large targets and it remains to be seen how the application changes affect damage to small stuff.
I'd personally keep most of these changes but make the following tweaks: Main gun explosion radius 210 instead of 160. Main gun explosion velocity 130 instead of 150. Main gun damage +25%. Salvo explosion radius 300 instead of 350. Salvo explosion velocity 110 instead of 100. Salvo damage -30% instead of -40%. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
995
|
Posted - 2016.06.17 00:28:47 -
[329] - Quote
Devs hard at work
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc. Asteria Concord.
31
|
Posted - 2016.06.17 00:48:41 -
[330] - Quote
these changes certainly feel like they came from that thing... |
|
|
|
|
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 |