Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:16:13 -
[1] - Quote
Take the sexy sexy ABC hulls (and the tornado) give them tech two resists and a base tank somewhere between HaC and HiC, some fairly standard bonuses per level of racial battle-cruiser and a single subsystem slot. We'll call this subsystem ' -racial-specialisation subsystem' for now and have them come in different varieties and let you fit specific oversized modules.
Say a Caldari propulsion specialisation subsystem that gives 75% reduction in power-grid and capacitor use +15% reduction in mass penalty per *t2/3 battle-cruiser skill*/level for 100MN afterburners and some HaM/HML bonuses (the Gallante one might give a 500MN MWD bonus + drone stats). Ewar specialisation modules that let you fit target breakers, grapplers, heavy scrams or disruptors. Tank specialisation modules that give bonuses to large shield extenders/1600 plates or let you fit large armour reps/ double large boosters. And of course, a BFG specialisation.
Not sure if this idea would be closer classified to tech two or three although as there's a certain level of versatility involved we'll say tech three to avoid semantics.
The idea being to play on the role of ABCs fitting oversized guns without necessarily limiting them to glass cannon roles. A general idea would be that the specialisation subsystems let the ships fill a particular niche extremely effectively.
The oversized prop-mod bonuses would give drone/HAM/HML bonuses to combine respectable beefiness with consistent (if somewhat mild) dps on ships that are incredibly nimble but would also give something for HaCs and frigates to really sink their teeth into.
The oversized EWar subs could be paired with a tank, sensor or tracking bonus as a tool to relieve pressure from fast tackle in a fleet environment or even to provide heavy tackle in brawls without negating the usefulness of HiCs.
The oversized tank subsystems could be tuned to make anti-headshot ships or with moderate medium gun bonuses as dedicated front-line dps ships (although we probably have enough of those already)
And of course the Big guns subsystem for those who love being primary at the start of every fleet engagement and think that t2 resists will improve their survival odds enough to warrant a t2/3 price-tag.
Happy to hear suggestions, be told how and why this may be game breaking/ too bad to use - not going to even bother with 'fix what's broken before adding new content' because that defeats the purpose of this forum ^.^. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
626
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:22:54 -
[2] - Quote
Doesn't sound good in the matter of ship balances, making something like your describing Would totally tip the game off balance, I'm not saying no but I don't see how it can work. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:32:08 -
[3] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:Doesn't sound good in the matter of ship balances, making something like your describing Would totally tip the game off balance, I'm not saying no but I don't see how it can work.
Any particular reason for this? I mean with the exception of the big guns subsystem the ships /could/ be stuck with t-1 cruiser dps, without the prop subsystem they'd have battlecruiser mobility and sig radius and without the tank subsystem they'd only be somewhere between HaC and HiC in tankiness and it's a case of 'pick one'. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
626
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:44:17 -
[4] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:Piugattuk wrote:Doesn't sound good in the matter of ship balances, making something like your describing Would totally tip the game off balance, I'm not saying no but I don't see how it can work. Any particular reason for this? I mean with the exception of the big guns subsystem the ships /could/ be stuck with t-1 cruiser dps, without the prop subsystem they'd have battlecruiser mobility and sig radius and without the tank subsystem they'd only be somewhere between HaC and HiC in tankiness and it's a case of 'pick one'.
We got tornadoes, Naga's, etc, turns out that people just use them to gank mostly, seems it would just be a new set of gank ships to me, at least this is my feeling on this. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:47:15 -
[5] - Quote
before i even get into the rest ill just show you how you failed at the start
so you want to take the ABCs and give them more tank than a HAC.... give them more tank.... you do understand the glass part is the only thing keeping these cannons balanced right?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:49:53 -
[6] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:Taliyah Riraille wrote:Piugattuk wrote:Doesn't sound good in the matter of ship balances, making something like your describing Would totally tip the game off balance, I'm not saying no but I don't see how it can work. Any particular reason for this? I mean with the exception of the big guns subsystem the ships /could/ be stuck with t-1 cruiser dps, without the prop subsystem they'd have battlecruiser mobility and sig radius and without the tank subsystem they'd only be somewhere between HaC and HiC in tankiness and it's a case of 'pick one'. We got tornadoes, Naga's, etc, turns out that people just use them to gank mostly, seems it would just be a new set of gank ships to me, at least this is my feeling on this.
People won't fork out a t2 price tag for high sec ganking ships AND these ships would have the option of fulfilling a role other than glass cannon DPS. At this point I get the feeling you didn't read my post and just presumed I wanted better gankfest ships. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 04:55:32 -
[7] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:before i even get into the rest ill just show you how you failed at the start
so you want to take the ABCs and give them more tank than a HAC.... give them more tank.... you do understand the glass part is the only thing keeping these cannons balanced right? Please read the rest of my post before shitting all over the idea due to the first sentence. Also use your head, if you're going to actually end up with a substantial killmail on losing a ship as easy to track and apply to as a goddamn battlecruiser it needs to tank okay. ABCs are glass because they're cheap after insurance not because they do loads of damage, the megathron for instance does as much damage as a talos and is literally five times as tanky but that's not an issue. |
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
626
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:04:30 -
[8] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:Piugattuk wrote:Taliyah Riraille wrote:Piugattuk wrote:Doesn't sound good in the matter of ship balances, making something like your describing Would totally tip the game off balance, I'm not saying no but I don't see how it can work. Any particular reason for this? I mean with the exception of the big guns subsystem the ships /could/ be stuck with t-1 cruiser dps, without the prop subsystem they'd have battlecruiser mobility and sig radius and without the tank subsystem they'd only be somewhere between HaC and HiC in tankiness and it's a case of 'pick one'. We got tornadoes, Naga's, etc, turns out that people just use them to gank mostly, seems it would just be a new set of gank ships to me, at least this is my feeling on this. People won't fork out a t2 price tag for high sec ganking ships AND these ships would have the option of fulfilling a role other than glass cannon DPS. At this point I get the feeling you didn't read my post and just presumed I wanted better gankfest ships.
Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, that is entirely possible, but thats the impression I get, and yes, people would shell out ISK for a boat to gank ships at gate camps, etc, never underestimate other peoples ambition to apply DPS for lolz and pay good ISK to do just that. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:07:27 -
[9] - Quote
well no the talos actually does more damage than the mega. the talos is also faster than the mega and can track better than the mega. i did read the rest of your post and it is just as bad as the beginning. you provide a whole lot of pros and flexibility without a lot of cons. basically you want to create the T3c problem all over again. you have also failed to point out what niche in the game these would be filling that is not filled by other ships. remember "cool" is great and all but its not a reason to add a ship into the game
BLOPS Hauler
|
Rhaegon Aesir
Static-Shock
13
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:07:30 -
[10] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:ABCs are glass because they're cheap after insurance not because they do loads of damage,
...no, they are glass because they do loads of damage. Literally every T1 ship is cheap after insurance, yet you can tank many of them quite well.
Taliyah Riraille wrote: the megathron for instance does as much damage as a talos and is literally five times as tanky but that's not an issue.
...because the Megathron is a BATTLESHIP not a BATTLECRUISER...it costs far more, is slower, has worse sensor systems, and is a completely different class of ship. By your logic, I can easily say "The Thorax does as much damage as a Catalyst and is literally five times as tanky but that's not an issue". See the problem? You can't compare two different ship classes. |
|
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:13:35 -
[11] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:Taliyah Riraille wrote:Piugattuk wrote:Taliyah Riraille wrote:Piugattuk wrote:Doesn't sound good in the matter of ship balances, making something like your describing Would totally tip the game off balance, I'm not saying no but I don't see how it can work. Any particular reason for this? I mean with the exception of the big guns subsystem the ships /could/ be stuck with t-1 cruiser dps, without the prop subsystem they'd have battlecruiser mobility and sig radius and without the tank subsystem they'd only be somewhere between HaC and HiC in tankiness and it's a case of 'pick one'. We got tornadoes, Naga's, etc, turns out that people just use them to gank mostly, seems it would just be a new set of gank ships to me, at least this is my feeling on this. People won't fork out a t2 price tag for high sec ganking ships AND these ships would have the option of fulfilling a role other than glass cannon DPS. At this point I get the feeling you didn't read my post and just presumed I wanted better gankfest ships. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, that is entirely possible, but thats the impression I get, and yes, people would shell out ISK for a boat to gank ships at gate camps, etc, never underestimate other peoples ambition to apply DPS for lolz and pay good ISK to do just that.
I mean, why not just gate camp in a vindi, mach, rattle, tempest or just about any other decent battleship which do just as much dps as ABCs with far more tank? the whole point of this isn't to make some souped up hyper cannon (you're thinking dreadnaughts) it was to create a line of ships to fill specific niches and follow a theme of oversized fittings. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:17:07 -
[12] - Quote
Rhaegon Aesir wrote: ...no, they are glass because they do loads of damage. Literally every T1 ship is cheap after insurance, yet you can tank many of them quite well.
...because the Megathron is a BATTLESHIP not a BATTLECRUISER...it costs far more, is slower, has worse sensor systems, and is a completely different class of ship. By your logic, I can easily say "The Thorax does as much damage as a Catalyst and is literally five times as tanky but that's not an issue". See the problem? You can't compare two different ship classes.
So, you're saying that the talos does **** tonnes of damage, is cheap and glass, the megathron does the same kind of damage, isn't glass but is costly (and marginally slower), and that makes for good balance. BUT if a ship were to be able to do the same damage, be less glass than the talos, more glass than the megathron and slightly more mobile than the megathron, that'd magically be broken regardless of price tag? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:17:43 -
[13] - Quote
because BBs have **** scan res. scan res is important for gate camping
and again what niches is it filling that are not already filled
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:20:49 -
[14] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:Rhaegon Aesir wrote: ...no, they are glass because they do loads of damage. Literally every T1 ship is cheap after insurance, yet you can tank many of them quite well.
...because the Megathron is a BATTLESHIP not a BATTLECRUISER...it costs far more, is slower, has worse sensor systems, and is a completely different class of ship. By your logic, I can easily say "The Thorax does as much damage as a Catalyst and is literally five times as tanky but that's not an issue". See the problem? You can't compare two different ship classes.
So, you're saying that the talos does **** tonnes of damage, is cheap and glass, the megathron does the same kind of damage, isn't glass but is costly (and marginally slower), and that makes for good balance. BUT if a ship were to be able to do the same damage, be less glass than the talos, more glass than the megathron and slightly more mobile than the megathron, that'd magically be broken regardless of price tag?
price is not a balancing factor. the reason for this is because if something is op there are those of us that have plenty of isk to exploit it.
im not sure you understand how much of an increase to applied DPS there is when you increase mobility
BLOPS Hauler
|
Rhaegon Aesir
Static-Shock
13
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:21:05 -
[15] - Quote
There is no niche here to fill. If you want large guns and tank, get a battleship. If you want large guns on a cheaper, more mobile platform, get an ABC. Your idea basically obsoletes both battleships and ABCs because it's the best of both worlds with none of the drawbacks. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:24:06 -
[16] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:well no the talos actually does more damage than the mega. the talos is also faster than the mega and can track better than the mega. i did read the rest of your post and it is just as bad as the beginning. you provide a whole lot of pros and flexibility without a lot of cons. basically you want to create the T3c problem all over again. you have also failed to point out what niche in the game these would be filling that is not filled by other ships. remember "cool" is great and all but its not a reason to add a ship into the game
Okay, something actually constructive (ish) Disregarding the argument we could have that would last for days regarding the raw stat balance involved I did /try/ to give a rough idea of the kind of niche the specialisations could fill. I'll try and give a little more detail here.
An oversized prop mod variant could be used as an anti-kiting platform with enough tank to survive most long range weapons and having the mobility to control range while remaining incredibly vulnerable to brawlers who can get in and neut/web+scram with only moderate tank and low dps.
an oversized tackle variant would be used to lay off the pressure of fast tackle with access to heavy propulsion jamming equipment + medium guns
an oversized tank variant would be a floating brick and the oversized guns variant would just be a slightly less good macharial. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:26:36 -
[17] - Quote
Rhaegon Aesir wrote:There is no niche here to fill. If you want large guns and tank, get a battleship. If you want large guns on a cheaper, more mobile platform, get an ABC. Your idea basically obsoletes both battleships and ABCs because it's the best of both worlds with none of the drawbacks.
Okay that settles it, you didn't read my post - the idea is that you CHOOSE between big guns, big tackle, big engines or big tank. The idea of having /moderate/ tank by default is that there'll be a t2 pricetag on the damn ship and no one wants to pay 350mill for 5kEHP. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:31:21 -
[18] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Taliyah Riraille wrote:Rhaegon Aesir wrote: ...no, they are glass because they do loads of damage. Literally every T1 ship is cheap after insurance, yet you can tank many of them quite well.
...because the Megathron is a BATTLESHIP not a BATTLECRUISER...it costs far more, is slower, has worse sensor systems, and is a completely different class of ship. By your logic, I can easily say "The Thorax does as much damage as a Catalyst and is literally five times as tanky but that's not an issue". See the problem? You can't compare two different ship classes.
So, you're saying that the talos does **** tonnes of damage, is cheap and glass, the megathron does the same kind of damage, isn't glass but is costly (and marginally slower), and that makes for good balance. BUT if a ship were to be able to do the same damage, be less glass than the talos, more glass than the megathron and slightly more mobile than the megathron, that'd magically be broken regardless of price tag? price is not a balancing factor. the reason for this is because if something is op there are those of us that have plenty of isk to exploit it. im not sure you understand how much of an increase to applied DPS there is when you increase mobility
Okay, so you're telling me that people would cease to fly any kind of cruiser doctrine or any kind of battleship doctrine if you could spend 500million to get the following stats, 1000 dps, 7 turret tracking, 5k optimal + 6k falloff, 70k EHP and either 210 sig rad + 600m/s or 1200 sig rad + 1300m/s? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:39:03 -
[19] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:
An oversized prop mod variant could be used as an anti-kiting platform with enough tank to survive most long range weapons and having the mobility to control range while remaining incredibly vulnerable to brawlers who can get in and neut/web+scram with only moderate tank and low dps.
an oversized tackle variant would be used to lay off the pressure of fast tackle with access to heavy propulsion jamming equipment + medium guns
an oversized tank variant would be a floating brick and the oversized guns variant would just be a slightly less good macharial.
1 interceptors and command DDs fill this
2 HICs do this so do BBs and current BCs
3 we have loads of bricks in the game and the current ABC fill the oversized guns
so no you have not shown what niche they are filling. we don't need more ships to balance and maintain if they are not adding anything
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:40:48 -
[20] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:[quote=Rhaegon Aesir]The idea of having /moderate/ tank by default is that there'll be a t2 pricetag on the damn ship and no one wants to pay 350mill for 5kEHP.
T2 does not mean better tank... any blops pilot can tell you that
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Rhaegon Aesir
Static-Shock
14
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:51:51 -
[21] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:well no the talos actually does more damage than the mega. the talos is also faster than the mega and can track better than the mega. i did read the rest of your post and it is just as bad as the beginning. you provide a whole lot of pros and flexibility without a lot of cons. basically you want to create the T3c problem all over again. you have also failed to point out what niche in the game these would be filling that is not filled by other ships. remember "cool" is great and all but its not a reason to add a ship into the game Okay, something actually constructive (ish) Disregarding the argument we could have that would last for days regarding the raw stat balance involved I did /try/ to give a rough idea of the kind of niche the specialisations could fill. I'll try and give a little more detail here. An oversized prop mod variant could be used as an anti-kiting platform with enough tank to survive most long range weapons and having the mobility to control range while remaining incredibly vulnerable to brawlers who can get in and neut/web+scram with only moderate tank and low dps. an oversized tackle variant would be used to lay off the pressure of fast tackle with access to heavy propulsion jamming equipment + medium guns an oversized tank variant would be a floating brick and the oversized guns variant would just be a slightly less good macharial.
|
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 05:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
1 interceptors and command DDs fill this
2 HICs do this so do BBs and current BCs
3 we have loads of bricks in the game and the current ABC fill the oversized guns
so no you have not shown what niche they are filling. we don't need more ships to balance and maintain if they are not adding anything T2 does not mean better tank... any blops pilot can tell you that
I'll concede to those points, but dare I ask - if we were to try and get an idea like a ship designed explicitly to fit one kind of oversized module or another in the theme of current ABCs but with more versatility and specialisation options, do you think there is a way to make the variations able to fulfil roles not currently in game?
Also BloPs have cloak and n+1 tank :p so the ****** stats is absolutely necessary for them |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3940
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 06:49:32 -
[23] - Quote
Taliyah Riraille wrote: Also BloPs have cloak and n+1 tank :p so the ****** stats is absolutely necessary for them
so you do have some grasp on balance
BLOPS Hauler
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
305
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 18:26:37 -
[24] - Quote
Saboteur
Can fit covert ops cloak Cannot fit covert cyno Cannot use covert cyno Immune to dscan No penalty to targeting npcs (scan resolution) after decloaking, no inability to cloak while targeted by NPCs. Immune to interdiction probes and bubbles Normal cloak penalties apply to player ships. Can loot wrecks cloaked (Access range changes from 2500m to 4500m)
For roaming around hostile territory stealing their sites, anoms, data/relic sites without the ability to cyno so people will be more likely to hunt you down. People out running sites? Follow them around and steal loot, run your own sites to take away from the owners of the area. Troll miners.
It's like a cloaky camper but with more gameplay focus than just sitting there being a dbag waiting to hot drop someone. Encourages active gameplay in hostile territory and interrupting pve. Drop your loot in your friendly blockade runner
(My excuse to ask for a covert cloak with no scan penalty on NPCs for my pve bcs) |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2017.05.22 21:35:07 -
[25] - Quote
Well Command ships are BattleCruisers and have T2 resists and Astarte can do over 1000+Dps without drones (1250+ With). Does that cover you? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3952
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 02:57:53 -
[26] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Saboteur
Can fit covert ops cloak Cannot fit covert cyno Cannot use covert cyno Immune to dscan No penalty to targeting npcs (scan resolution) after decloaking, no inability to cloak while targeted by NPCs. Immune to interdiction probes and bubbles Normal cloak penalties apply to player ships. Can loot wrecks cloaked (Access range changes from 2500m to 4500m)
For roaming around hostile territory stealing their sites, anoms, data/relic sites without the ability to cyno so people will be more likely to hunt you down. People out running sites? Follow them around and steal loot, run your own sites to take away from the owners of the area. Troll miners.
It's like a cloaky camper but with more gameplay focus than just sitting there being a dbag waiting to hot drop someone. Encourages active gameplay in hostile territory and interrupting pve. Drop your loot in your friendly blockade runner
(My excuse to ask for a covert cloak with no scan penalty on NPCs for my pve bcs)
Lol you have no ******* clue as to the mechanics you're talking about do you?
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Rhaegon Aesir
Static-Shock
18
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 06:26:31 -
[27] - Quote
Yeeeah boi I'm gonna sneak into your territory, run all your anomalies and mine all your asteroids! You'll never have isk again!
...wait, anomalies respawn? Uhhh...well, damn. |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 06:51:28 -
[28] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:Saboteur
Can fit covert ops cloak Cannot fit covert cyno Cannot use covert cyno Immune to dscan No penalty to targeting npcs (scan resolution) after decloaking, no inability to cloak while targeted by NPCs. Immune to interdiction probes and bubbles Normal cloak penalties apply to player ships. Can loot wrecks cloaked (Access range changes from 2500m to 4500m)
For roaming around hostile territory stealing their sites, anoms, data/relic sites without the ability to cyno so people will be more likely to hunt you down. People out running sites? Follow them around and steal loot, run your own sites to take away from the owners of the area. Troll miners.
It's like a cloaky camper but with more gameplay focus than just sitting there being a dbag waiting to hot drop someone. Encourages active gameplay in hostile territory and interrupting pve. Drop your loot in your friendly blockade runner
(My excuse to ask for a covert cloak with no scan penalty on NPCs for my pve bcs) This has literally nothing to do with OP - please take your idea elsewhere and avoid derailing threads. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3955
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 10:06:00 -
[29] - Quote
it was a suggestion for a T2 BC so it fits your thread
BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
1248
|
Posted - 2017.05.23 13:45:10 -
[30] - Quote
I agree with everyone else here that thinks your idea is terrible.
However in the spirit answer these questions.
T3C and T3D have been terrible for the game simply outclassing all of the other ships in their respective classes and in virtually every role they have been used in. Your idea essentially introduces T3 battle cruisers to the game (we already have T2 they are called command ships) given the poor balance history and OP nature of the other T3 ships is this really a good idea?
Over the last few years with ship re-balance passes the T3C remain the only ships that are largely unchanged, no doubt that is in large part due to the difficulty in balancing a ship with sub-systems that can be changed at will. Now you want to introduce this balance nightmare sub-system idea into yet another class of ships, is that really a good idea? Do we really need or even want this mess added to the game?
You state that you want these ships to be either high DPS with low tank or high tank with low DPS depending on the whims and needs at the moment and propose to allow the players to choose at will which it will be. How do you propose to make this happen. If they can fit large guns in the high DPS mode, how do you prevent them from using those guns when fit for the high tank role? Reverse is also true, if they can fit a high tank in that mode how do you propose to prevent them from using the large guns?
Currently we have the ABC which fulfill the glass canon role, we have the command ships which among other roles can be be brick tanked pretty effectively, and we have the standard T1 BC which fill the gaps between these two extremes rather nicely, why do we need more ships to fill these roles?
You speak about costs, the flexibility you want will likely come at a fairly high price (ISK) if they are are reasonably balanced will anyone even bother with them when the T1 options available can fill the same roles for significantly less cost? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |