Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
73
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 00:28:00 -
[511] - Quote
Here's a question that's been bugging me more and more: whom is this change supposed to benefit?
Before I get to it, I'd like to make a few comments.
I think the missile name change was on the whole a very good idea. Maybe there should've been some difference in nomenclature between rockets, missiles and torpedoes, and maybe "Scourge" should have been used instead of "Trauma," but on the whole it is now easier for all players to quickly find the right missile damage type, which is a good thing.
I also think the skill implant name change is good. It mostly preserves the flavor and uniqueness of the implants, but adds useful information so that it is easier to find the right implant.
However, the module name change doesn't seem to benefit anyone very much, for a very simple reason: no sane player selects directly from the market which modules to fit on a ship.
Older players, unless they're complete nitwits, use a third-party fitting tool like EFT or PyFA or borrow fittings from other players. The actual fitting of a ship occurs completely out of game, where the name and nominal meta-level of the modules is irrelevant, since third-party tools already present all relevant module stats and their effect on the ship to the player. Adding the meta level of a module to its name would be completely superfluous. A player who fits the ship in EFT doesn't care about the name of the module he needs for the purposes of selecting it, and he most certainly doesn't care whether the meta level of the item is in the game, because he is looking at specific stats and not at an imperfect proxy like meta level. For example, if the EFT fitting for the ship I'm flying calls for a "Large 'Regard' Power Projector," I'm going to search for that module on the market and fit it, unless I cannot afford it, in which case I will go back to EFT and look at the next-best item and see if it still works, because lower-meta modules have higher fitting requirements. In either case I won't care one bit whether you change the name of the above module to "Large Awesome Energy Transporter," so long as it shows up properly in EFT. So older players aren't really going to benefit from this change in any way.
Newer players might look on the market for modules. Such players however also do not really care about module names, for two reasons. (1) They usually cannot afford anything but the lowest-meta items. (2) If they are smart, they will look at fittings from other players, and copy those, in which case the names of the modules are irrelevant for the reasons already stated. (3) If they are really smart, or simply ask in help chat, or ask their corp/alliance members, they will be referred to a third-party fitting tool and will become like older players mentioned above and will not care about module names, just what the modules do.
The only time module names will matter is if the player is browsing the market categories, or looking up variants on the market or via the "show variants" function. Two changes will help players in such cases much more than any name change. (1) Sort modules in the market by meta level rather than by name; this way it will be readily apparent which modules are "better" than others. (2) Allow players to jump directly to a module's market category by right-clicking on a module name. EFT already does this, and so does PyFA most likely. This way a player can quickly look up different-meta modules and see the prices for all at a glance.
So for both older and newer players, module names shouldn't be causing problems. If you really want to help out new players, direct them in the tutorial to third-party tools like EFT and PyFA. Ideally such tools should be integrated directly into EVE itself, but that's not entirely necessary. Also make the market search more powerful, change the sorting of items on the market, and maybe even change module icons to indicate meta level. There are a myriad of ways in which you could make it easier for new players to fit ships and find modules, and all of them are better than homogenizing module names.
At the same time, a wholesale name change will break all of the fitting guides that have been written for EVE. Considering the extent to which EVE relies on player-written guides, ask if breaking all of those guides is something you really want to do without a very good reason. A wholesale name change will also significantly reduce the feeling of EVE as a real universe. Ask if that is something desirable, considering how often CCP proclaims the importance of immersion in EVE.
And if are still planning on overhauling all the module names, please at least consider all of the alternative proposals that have been put forth in this thread. I do not object to the idea of making this game easier for players, especially new players. I do object to the manner in which you are going about it. |
Embrodak Kazerin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 01:05:00 -
[512] - Quote
I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version.
This attempt at renaming the items is much better than the last one. Names are more intuitive, but flavor is preserved. Battleship missiles and implants really needed it.
Will you be redoing the names you already changed? "Trauma" is a stupid name for a missile. How about "Scourge Kinetic"?
Meta prefixes need more work. When I first played Eve, I avoided all the "Limited" guns because I thought it meant they were worse than the regular ones. "Experimental" and "prototype" don't make sense either when we're mass producing T2 variants.
My suggestion:
Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The first two words imply software adjustments, while the last two imply improvements to the hardware itself. That should make the relative quality levels more intuitive while keeping within the Eve style. |
ScooterPuff Sr
Galactic BANDITOS
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 01:06:00 -
[513] - Quote
Embrodak Kazerin wrote:I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version.
This attempt at renaming the items is much better than the last one. Names are more intuitive, but flavor is preserved. Battleship missiles and implants really needed it.
Will you be redoing the names you already changed? "Trauma" is a stupid name for a missile. How about "Scourge Kinetic"?
Meta prefixes need more work. When I first played Eve, I avoided all the "Limited" guns because I thought it meant they were worse than the regular ones. "Experimental" and "prototype" don't make sense either when we're mass producing T2 variants.
My suggestion:
Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The first two words imply software adjustments, while the last two imply improvements to the hardware itself. That should make the relative quality levels more intuitive while keeping within the Eve style. i suggest they put it back the way it was. or make it more confusing. whats the point of a game if no ones on their toes
|
Samroski
Games Inc. EVE Trade Consortium
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 08:08:00 -
[514] - Quote
Embrodak Kazerin wrote:I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version. My suggestion: Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The above makes much more sense than the experimental/prototype system suggested.
No matter what convention is used, I am delighted that I will be able to recognize meta 1-4 items by name. There are multiple applications of this change in every aspect of the game, and as a trader I love it.
I am in favour of all the changes suggested (esp. hardwiring), though I also think that the "array" in a launcher name makes absolutely no sense. Totally counter-intuitive, and counter-productive to the objectives of this exercise.
Keep up the good work! |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 18:59:00 -
[515] - Quote
-1 for thinking too much about gross simplicity and not enough about retaining the sci-fi flavor of the game. This is almost as ridiculous as renaming "light sabers" to "blue swords" in Star Wars, or retconning Star Trek to rename "phasers" to "guns".
"Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters" simply sounds much more interesting than "Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I".
If you insist on incorporating the meta level in the name, then simply add it to the existing name, ex. Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Meta-2 Thrusters, as you are proposing to do with the hardwiring implants. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:08:00 -
[516] - Quote
+1 for changes to names for hardwiring implants.
However, I'd suggest removing the [Skill/Function Name] and only keep the [Two-Letter Flavor Acronym] - you don't need both. If necessary, you can always expand the two-letter acronym to a three-letter acronym, to allow for additional differentiation between similarly initialed skills/functions. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:19:00 -
[517] - Quote
-1 for renaming Armor Coating/Armor Hardener/Armor Plating Energized/Shield Resistance Amplifier/Shield Hardener modules.
These modules are already consistently named and the names already indicate the damage types which they affect.
It is simply not necessary to include the actual damage type in every module name. You might as well suggest changing weapon names, too - ie. lasers to "EM/thermal guns" and hybrids to "thermal/kinetic" guns. |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 19:27:00 -
[518] - Quote
-1 to changing "Heavy Assault Missile Launchers" to "Assault Missile Launchers".
Change one, or change the other, if you feel the need to address "the counterintuitive assault launcher/heavy assault launcher dichotomy", but don't rename one into the other.
This will just increase the confusion, not reduce it, esp. due to the amount of out-of-game legacy material on the Internet which refers to the old names and which CCP cannot edit. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
722
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 21:24:00 -
[519] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:-1 for renaming Armor Coating/Armor Hardener/Armor Plating Energized/Shield Resistance Amplifier/Shield Hardener modules.
These modules are already consistently named and the names already indicate the damage types which they affect.
It is simply not necessary to include the actual damage type in every module name. You might as well suggest changing weapon names, too - ie. lasers to "EM/thermal guns" and hybrids to "thermal/kinetic" guns.
this, pretty much.
also, +1 to all the comments mentioning you're breaking EIGHT YEARS worth of guides. |
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
245
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 01:03:00 -
[520] - Quote
Can't quote this hard enough!
Stuff Goes here |
|
Trainwreck McGee
Ghost Ship Inc.
229
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 16:14:00 -
[521] - Quote
God dammit CCP either
Make the names ACTUALLY easier to follow
or leave them alone
These changes are not good. CCP Trainwreck - Weekend Custodial Engineer / CCP Necrogoats foot stool |
None ofthe Above
105
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 18:43:00 -
[522] - Quote
Embrodak Kazerin wrote:I wrote up a big post, but the forum ate it so you're getting the short version.
This attempt at renaming the items is much better than the last one. Names are more intuitive, but flavor is preserved. Battleship missiles and implants really needed it.
Will you be redoing the names you already changed? "Trauma" is a stupid name for a missile. How about "Scourge Kinetic"?
Meta prefixes need more work. When I first played Eve, I avoided all the "Limited" guns because I thought it meant they were worse than the regular ones. "Experimental" and "prototype" don't make sense either when we're mass producing T2 variants.
My suggestion:
Meta1: Calibrated Meta2: Optimized Meta3: Enhanced Meta4: Upgraded
The first two words imply software adjustments, while the last two imply improvements to the hardware itself. That should make the relative quality levels more intuitive while keeping within the Eve style.
This one is good, although I would swap Optimized and Enhanced to get the alphanumeric sort to match the Meta levels.
And add the flavor name in single quotes.
Even None ofthe Above supports Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7! |
Mirajane Cromwell
51
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 19:54:00 -
[523] - Quote
I think it's more of UI problem than obscure item name problem - why not just add M1, M2, M3, M4 tags to the corner of item logos (like tech 2 tag) so that you'll immediately see to which meta group each item belongs to? Can't UI designers figure out ways to make it easier to see relevant module info in various windows?
If the new naming goes through, then I'd have dozens of item stacks that start with name "prototype" or "experimental" etc so if I use the list view in hangar, it's going to be really painful to find that one particular item - the new naming scheme would be trader's nightmare. So I'd rather have meta info shown in item logos and in item lists as well as in market lists. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
294
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 21:21:00 -
[524] - Quote
The only naming change that would had made any sense was from "Paradise cruise missile" to "Paradise EM Cruise missile".
Obviously that was too obvious and CCP knew better... EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents.
EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about...-á |
Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 22:38:00 -
[525] - Quote
Just to throw my opinion in, I think you should reset all the changes. I don't think changing the names like this helps with the NPE really. They will still have to look at the attributes on each of the modules to decide what they want to fit, or it won't actually matter an they'll buy the cheapest or fit what is already in their haul.
If you want to clarify the damage types, add it as a "EM/EXP" bit to the name to make it clearer, but how are you handling projectile/hybrid ammo?
It makes complete RP sense for the different missile types to have different names like they did. A Thorn rocket would be a very different thing to a scourge heavy missile. Completely different size, ranges, weight, payload etc. The only thing that would be the same is the type of damage they do, so why call them both Trauma? The change has just made it HARDER to find them in the market or items window. Instead of searching for "Thorn" and finding a load of relevant results, I now have to search for Trauma Heavy. Except that doesn't work, because it misses out the Rages and Javelins!
The prop mod changes are a real shame. They are some of the best named items in the game IMHO and I really miss them. I actually think it's more confusing now. I keep looking for Experimental 1MN MWD, but it doesn't exist, instead I need to look for the Limited? Yet there is an Experimental 10MN MWD? How is this any easier than searching for Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters for the best meta mwd or Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters for the AB one? It says a lot that I can still remember them to dump them here.
Implants is a good move. +1 on them.
Just as an anecdotal point, I've flown with and trained loads of newbies and I don't remember a single complaint about being able to tell the difference between them by name. I do remember people talking about how they liked the names though :/ |
Noran Talidan
Unity College
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 01:28:00 -
[526] - Quote
Really? CCP Really!!!!
I've played eve since '04, you know back when the learning curve was so high it was practically a wall.
And i can tell ya... i never had once thought about "These names suck". I thought they were creative... and it really seems like you guy lost alot of that since then.
This is the stupidest idea I've heard in a while... I was alright with the missles... but everything else?? Get with it.
You might aswell rename the game while your at it.... I know!!!! "SpaceShips -- Online!!!"
I got anouther suggestion... rename the Armageddon "The Space Dildo" and the navy issue "The Better Space Dildo"... and then i'll shove it where it belongs... which dev first????
Thanks for getting my blood pressure going!!
|
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 08:06:00 -
[527] - Quote
Noran Talidan wrote:Really? CCP Really!!!!
I've played eve since '04, you know back when the learning curve was so high it was practically a wall.
And i can tell ya... i never had once thought about "These names suck". I thought they were creative... and it really seems like you guy lost alot of that since then.
This is the stupidest idea I've heard in a while... I was alright with the missles... but everything else?? Get with it.
You might aswell rename the game while your at it.... I know!!!! "SpaceShips -- Online!!!"
I got anouther suggestion... rename the Armageddon "The Space Dildo" and the navy issue "The Better Space Dildo"... and then i'll shove it where it belongs... which dev first????
Thanks for getting my blood pressure going!!
Agree
CCP,this is the time to create Experimental Dual Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy EM/Thermal Beam Meta-4 Weapon for Dumbs.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
83
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:32:00 -
[528] - Quote
egh, seems needlesly pointless to me
Firstly some meta level mods are preferable over others because of more than just "does more damage\resists"
Also, Things have names, deal with it. Unless we're going to rename ******* to arrogance powder, canabis to lethargy weed etc. |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:35:00 -
[529] - Quote
CCP really please dont use Limited, Experimental or Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its easy to understand its better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order.
CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:51:00 -
[530] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:CCP really please dont use Limited, Experimental or Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its easy to understand its better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order.
Do not create Experimental or Protoype but create Calibrated, Enchanted and other names ? LOL
Dumb Dumbers Dumbest
Not need name changes. Not need Limited and not need Calibrated or other idiotic names too. |
|
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 09:55:00 -
[531] - Quote
Yes we dont need this. New player may find this less confusing. But since CCP is doing this already, they should at least do it right. Trolling over and over again that you dont want something that is already beying implemented wont help anything. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Tiger's Spirit
Troll Hunters INC.
58
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:21:00 -
[532] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:New player may find this less confusing.....
Really ? They was confused with old names ? I dont think so.
But they will be confused when they trying to find any modules and they see on interenet other module names on killboards, on the websites which trying to help for newbees with old FAQs etc. This is the first problem with this name changes. This changes would be make more mess to the game.
The second problem is, the old players will be confused too, because they playing with 7-8 years long this game and these player memorized the old module names.
Don't fix what ain't broke.
But why not fix what is broke ? Such a supercaps problems, ship problems like a EW frigs or gallente commandship, lag problems, overview problems, 0.0 problems, Tech moon problems, cloak problems etc. |
Daeva Teresa
Viziam Amarr Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 11:32:00 -
[533] - Quote
Its really stupid to repeat myself. But since you didnt get it first time: Yes, we dont need this. But since its already beying implemented, CCP could at least do this right, soo it can last for another next 10 years or so. CCP really please dont use Upgraded, Limited, Experimental-áand Prototype in item names. It sounds like the item is actually worse than basic meta 1 item. Use Calibrated, Enhanced, Optimized and Upgraded. Its really easy to understand that the item is better than meta 1 and its also in alphabetic order. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
734
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 12:09:00 -
[534] - Quote
Daeva Teresa wrote:We dont need this. Hand Gnauton over to Sansha, and rid yourselves of this terribad idea.
Fixed that for you.
Alternatively, force him to play the game and give everyone his location, and a full cargohold of Widowmakers |
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate Initiative Mercenaries
26
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 12:10:00 -
[535] - Quote
Sorry to repeat what others have already said; but Light Missile Arrays as a name is daft for 2 reasons:
1) They do not fire light missiles, they fire assault missiles 2) Heavy Assault missiles are fired from a heavy assault launcher, and Assault Missiles are fired from a Light Missile Array. This change actually goes directly against what you are trying to do.
It's almost like one person was responsible for naming the light missiles, and another was responsible for naming the heavy missiles, and they didn't bother talking to each other.
On the other hand, the existing names of most meta items are dumb, it takes a long time to find out if the item you have found is worth keeping or not. So do go ahead with changing stuff, just make sure you do it correctly. Inform 3rd party software developers a LONG time in advance and provide a table of old vs new names so they can easily update their lists.
This is the kind of thing the CSM should get involved with. Just saying. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
268
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 12:30:00 -
[536] - Quote
Muul Udonii wrote:Sorry to repeat what others have already said; but Light Missile Arrays as a name is daft for 2 reasons:
1) They do not fire light missiles, they fire assault missiles 2) Heavy Assault missiles are fired from a heavy assault launcher, and Assault Missiles are fired from a Light Missile Array. This change actually goes directly against what you are trying to do.
It's almost like one person was responsible for naming the light missiles, and another was responsible for naming the heavy missiles, and they didn't bother talking to each other.
On the other hand, the existing names of most meta items are dumb, it takes a long time to find out if the item you have found is worth keeping or not. So do go ahead with changing stuff, just make sure you do it correctly. Inform 3rd party software developers a LONG time in advance and provide a table of old vs new names so they can easily update their lists.
This is the kind of thing the CSM should get involved with. Just saying.
Uh, go to the market. Find me heavy assault missiles. I won't bother waiting, as I have things to do other than wait forever.
Assault Missile Launchers are just light missile launchers that cycle faster. Heavy Assault Missile Launchers fire assault missiles (not heavy assault missiles. which don't exist.)
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Assault_Missile_Launcher_I http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Heavy_Assault_Missile_Launcher_I FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator and other 'useful' utilities. |
Tamiya Sarossa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
164
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:24:00 -
[537] - Quote
Simplicity is cool, but please at least put the old names in the description of items, they were nice flavor. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 17:54:00 -
[538] - Quote
Ok, here we go
Hardwiring implant name changes - excellent. Love it, makes it easier to tell what they do without sacrificing flavour and fixes something which was commonly whined about
Armor/Shield resist module name changes - makes life a bit easier for new players, makes market searches easier for everyone...removes a tiny bit of flavour and requires re-learning a few terms but generally not really bothered, overall prob a good change
Launcher name changes - I can understand the reasoning...personally I find the new names confusing and unneccessary after 8 years. I could live with the change though
Module meta level names - What the f$*& are you thinking? Utterly utterly horrible. You ask if it removes too much flavour from the universe.....how could it not? How many different item names and pre-fixes are there in the database.....and you want to replace ALL of them with 4 words? It was crap enough on the mwd's (not to mention the horrible and utterly unnecessary missile name change which only serves to further remove flavour from the game and more importantly makes me take longer to see which missiles i need from a hangar since all the names are the f%&*$&g same), how on earth do you want to do it everything else? If the main arguements are simplification and helping new players well: a; there are more existing players negatively affected than there are new players to be benefitted, b; simplification for its own sake is needless dumbing down and well....simplification...and c; how about focusing on teaching new players how to show info and compare items if complexity is really the issue? Personally I've learnt vast amounts about the game by studying item infos and comparing attributes. This is not a case of complexity for complexity's sake; this is for the sake of sci-fi flavour, immersion in the game, general differentiation, avoidance of boredom and other feelings i've yet to work out how to elucidate in a sufficiently biased fashion. [insert well thought out arguement about it buggering up existing backstory and game fiction here, not to mention killboards, game guides etc etc here
On further consideration I actually find CCP's view of our mental capacities as implied by their perception of a need for this global name change fairly insulting
I'm trying my best but I don't thinking I can adequately emphasise just how horrific an idea I think the meta name changes are; in any form.
I'm not quibbling over the confusion between the new naming scheme, since prototype and experiemental are the same thing, or that 'limited' makes an item sound worse than t1; but rather vomiting over the whole scheme and the spurious reasoning behind it. I'm sure there are better ways this dev team's time can be used
It's just not necessary
[constructive suggestions: if you want to draw more attention to items meta levels and make it quicker and easier to see then what about just adding an 'm' designation to existing names? i.e. Fleeting M2 Warp Disruptor (not very elegant and I still don't like it, but it's less horrible that the proposal). Or perhaps adding a new info tab to items; 'Meta Level'? not wonderful ideas I know.] |
Shin Dari
The Vendunari Warped Aggression
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:09:00 -
[539] - Quote
The Assault Missile Launcher dilemma is quite annoying, in fact one can say that its existence isn't even consistent, its the odd man out of all the launchers. If possible I would recommend to have it replaced by a skill book, something like Advanced Rapid Launch, Light Missile Rapid Launch or Light Rapid Launch.
@The Economist How can you take longer to see which missiles you need from a hangar?! In my experience it is going a lot faster. |
The Economist
Logically Consistent
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 18:20:00 -
[540] - Quote
Shin Dari wrote:
The Assault Missile Launcher dilemma is quite annoying, in fact one can say that its existence isn't even consistent, its the odd man out of all the launchers. If possible I would recommend to have it replaced by a skill book, something like Advanced Rapid Launch, Light Missile Rapid Launch or Light Rapid Launch.
@The Economist How can you take longer to see which missiles you need from a hangar?! In my experience it is going a lot faster.
They all have the same names.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |