Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Qicia
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 04:36:00 -
[211] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:The blind swap of penalties seems like it will cause more problems than it will fix. Here's an alternate suggestion, with explanations attached:
All Harder Rigs increase sig radius - the ship is more solid and shiny to targeting All Active Tanking Rigs increase active tank module CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful
Shield Extender Rigs decrease max velocity - thicker shields absorb more thrust Shield Fitting Rigs reduce the shield hp provided by the extenders - less power means less shield projected Shield Passive Recharge Rigs increase sig radius - rapid generation of shields is pops more
Armor Plate Rigs decrease max agility - heavier ships are harder to turn Armor Remote Rep Rigs increase the remote rep CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful
Salvage Tackle Rigs should be under Astronautic or Electronics Superiority Rigs or something, they don't make sense here. And change them to reduce shield amount - sensors can get a better reading with less interference.
This makes more sense.
Q |
Dorn Val
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
37
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 05:28:00 -
[212] - Quote
[quote=Kahega Amielden]Quote: By making neuts less attractive (either by nerfing them or making other options viable) you'd by extension boost active reps.
This. Very irritating to run into a Hurricane with two medium neuts when you're a laser user, and just about everyone is packing at least one neut these days. Rare for me to be flying a ship that doesn't have a cap booster...
Just like there is no I in Team there is no Fair in Eve... |
Degren
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
148
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 06:24:00 -
[213] - Quote
This thread will lead to interesting things.
I love love love where this game is headed |
Nevermore Akiga
Serenity Prime
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 06:34:00 -
[214] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:The blind swap of penalties seems like it will cause more problems than it will fix. Here's an alternate suggestion, with explanations attached:
All Harder Rigs increase sig radius - the ship is more solid and shiny to targeting All Active Tanking Rigs increase active tank module CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful
Shield Extender Rigs decrease max velocity - thicker shields absorb more thrust Shield Fitting Rigs reduce the shield hp provided by the extenders - less power means less shield projected Shield Passive Recharge Rigs increase sig radius - rapid generation of shields is pops more
Armor Plate Rigs decrease max agility - heavier ships are harder to turn Armor Remote Rep Rigs increase the remote rep CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful
Salvage Tackle Rigs should be under Astronautic or Electronics Superiority Rigs or something, they don't make sense here. And change them to reduce shield amount - sensors can get a better reading with less interference. +1 |
Vedje
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 07:24:00 -
[215] - Quote
My piece of mind: |
Vedje
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 07:25:00 -
[216] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno. It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing. Rig list:
- Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction rig
- Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig
EDIT: As mentioned here, this is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has started, this is just a concept that was passed along and that we wanted to discuss early on before proceeding further. Tweaked first paragraph on this post to reflect that, apologies for the confusion.
Dear Ytterrible
I believe it must have been very early in the morning on Island, and someone drunk all the coffee when you was ordered to rebalance tanking, because with all due respect this is an idea which seems not to have been completely thought trough.
I wish i knew reasons behind this particular move, i am sure you have damn good reasons for tank rebalancing, the game is indeed very much out off balance in many aspects. Rebalancing however should be aimed at making ships somewhat equal on the field, not to widen the gap even further!
Yes gallente rebalancing act failed, it failed miserably, gallente are still nowhere to be seen, not even in pve so please, go back to the drawing board, rethink gallente, do not drag the rest off us pilots down with you!
To elaborate:
Active tank is reserved for ratting, in short: for fending off slow and stabile incoming dps. In such role it is working completely in according to expectations. Active tanks vary in cost, depending on their purpose, a system that worked well so far, however clearly favoured one specific race, namely the caldari. As such caldari are capable of deploying very cheap and affordable non speed limiting tanks, while many other races in order to keep their dps need to place shield tank as well. Despite the fact that shield tanking came as caldari's "natural" ability, it was very uncommon for anyone to fit an active tank for pvp roles, even caldari. To everyone with common sense this will indicate that active tank becomes irrelevant when it comes to pvp.
Passive tank on the other end is really meant to buy time, precious time needed to annihilate the enemy, or die trying. In such scenario larger ships have larger tanks, smaller ships smaller. Therefore pve & pvp tanking is something that works fine as it is now!
On the other end, let's pursue your idea for a while. Forcing pvp ships to use active tank you not only eliminate the role of Logistic ships, which in such case would no longer be off any relevance in the game pvp or pve, but you also lower the overall defence capabilities of each and every ships that will have to deal with such a tank! Gallente which will be effected by this will then without a doubt be the worst pvp class one could pick, and i am sure that many of gallente pilots will either request skill points reset or leave the game. That is a bad thing and i am sure your ceo won't be happy!
Just imagine the heavy cap usage tank used on ship that has heavy cap usage already due to the nature of its weapon systems, coupled with cap intensive propulsion which gallente need in order to get in their pitiful range. Sounds good to you?
Imagine for a minute heavy alpha fleet, such as maelstrom fleet for instance wrecking havoc on enemies that have no chance now, dealing only with the ships natural buffer means that fleet needed to one-shoot-kill just got reduced in size.
Both of this scenarios indicate a big shift in the game mechanics in a way that certain races/ships will again have the upper hand while the rest will be struggling now to keep up. |
Nicki O
ChickenTime 2
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 07:47:00 -
[217] - Quote
if you want to fix active tanking then change the way repairers work or add a new kind of repairer.
proposal: dont let them cycle for x armor/shield every x seconds but give them a buffer they can repair every x seconds if needed.
for example a repairer with 1000armor buffer every 10 secs. (random numbers) ship gets alphad for 1000 damage - damage is instantly repaired ship gets 100 incomming dps - damage is constantly repaired over the 10 secs ship gets alphad for 1200 damage - 200 damage to the armor, damage is repaired after 10 secs but the buffer is now only 800hp ship gets 200 incoming dps - buffer is depleted after 5 secs and the rest of the time the ship gets damage. ship gets repaired after 10 secs but has no buffer left for the next 10 secs.
that would be an easy way to balance active vs passive tanking. because you have 3 variables you can easily balance. passive buffer amount active buffer amount active cycle time
obviously active buffer amount < passive buffer amount, but has not to be that much smaller, maybe 70%? plate with 1000armor vs a repairer with 700armor every 10 secs.
the active buffer would make them more viable in medium/larger fleets because logistics get a chance to lock them and help with reps. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
562
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 07:47:00 -
[218] - Quote
The simplest solution is:
- Shield extender rigs add shield HP and reduce armour HP - Shield resist rigs increase shield resists and reduce armor resists - Shield boost rigs eat CPU
- Trimarks add armour HP and reduce shield HP - Armour resists rigs increase armour resists and reduce shield resists - Armour rep rigs eat grid
- Passive shield regeneration is removed (has no armour counterpart)
Increase should always be slightly more than reduction. Essentially you just take from your secondary tank and add it to your primary tank, playing on your ship's strenghts.
This removes the whole problem of balancing the current secondary penalties, leaving only balancing of the ships themselves.
~ Elite forum PvP ~ |
VoZzZic
Tactical Innovation Inc.
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 07:50:00 -
[219] - Quote
further boost of 100mn shet, gj Also it would be that passive tank going to be slowered -> nerfed (all nano-shield ships take a hit) and all active tank...is going to get almost nothing because it either a bs class who doesn't care about its sig or it's mwd-fitted underbs class who usually moving with it's mwd and mostly doesn't care about it's sig as well. |
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 08:32:00 -
[220] - Quote
Does crying people here ever flown in an active tanked pvp ship ? I really doubt so...
Active tanking can make wonders in some cases, just look at frigates fit, or cyclones, or myrmidon, or hyperion. Buff it, and not bonused ship may be able to use it then. These changes are a gift to small scale pvp which will now have a choice between active tank and buffer.
If active tank *look* so bad, it's only because it currently don't have enough advantages over buffer in regards of their drawbacks. And seeing all the tears here, reason why is obvious : shield buffer have *no* drawback (sig penalty is not a drawback one can't overcome) while shield active tank eat your cap ; armor buffer have the same drawback than active one without using cap. Nerfing buffer and buffing ative tank will even the things out : *that* is balance. Now, minmatar/angel should learn to manage their cap.
BTW, complaining the gaming is turning into world of spaceship while actually flying ship which don't require *any* capacitor management is very blind talk. Right now, shield buffer have tank, speed, firepower and cap invulnerability ; it's about time they make some fitting choices... |
|
ian666
Virtual Democracy C0VEN
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 08:43:00 -
[221] - Quote
ccp: people dont use active tanking in pvp for various reasons, for example because modules like MWD or Nos/Neuts usable almost only in pvp situation, eats tons of cap, which normally is used for local reps / shield boosters. |
Elenor Kharne
Ergo Optima
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 08:58:00 -
[222] - Quote
Vedje wrote:Active tank is reserved for ratting, in short: for fending off slow and stabile incoming dps [...] To everyone with common sense this will indicate that active tank becomes irrelevant when it comes to pvp.
Not true. In small-scale active rep is quite useful and it's not rarely used; In larger fleets it's senseless to active tank as you stated already. And the challenge for active reps is timing them right (be it neuts, alpha) which is why they are fun
Increasing powergrid of rep modules is not a good idea. Most fittings are already pretty tight. I would like to see no penalty at all for active reps (nanos already have a hidden penalty -> cap usage). Sig bloom is just awful for them, although the incoming damage would not be that much. This sure needs further investigation on what would be best.
Making buffered tanked ships (shield&armor) slower makes sense to me. I like that active armor tanks would be faster. For gallente, they need to get close/get tackle asap and considering they are active tanked and close range, it's not optimal to have reduced speeds.
Btw. there are effects which slows things down without increasing mass but with a stronger electromagnetic field (Lenz's law). |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
931
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 09:19:00 -
[223] - Quote
how about reading the many many posts in Features and Ideas and implementing the best PLAYER derived ideas, not forcing your own badly formed ones through the system.
I can safely say that 90% of the player base do not want this idea of yours My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
675
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 09:20:00 -
[224] - Quote
Kenshin Tzestu wrote: A great change and a good sign for the direction of the game.
I hope CCP has the balls to ignore all the whiners who are content with the unbalanced and boring status quo and can't understand how to adapt to positive change. MMO's seem to have a lot of whiners, the amount of tears in this thread alone is pretty epic.
Can't help quoting this for truth.
Screw morons! 14 |
M1NeR
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 09:22:00 -
[225] - Quote
>>>In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking
In general, I seriously dislike this idea. Especially about minmatar. Speed was nerfed in several different ways already. Not again please.
Shield passive tanking is so good because it's easy&effective. Just like good old ak47. Active tanking for mobile vagastyle ships? Cap problems. Use cap booster? -1 med slot, less tank, not enough charges. If you really want it that way you'll have to look over cap booster size charges (-90% size eh?) or rebalance shield booster cap use etcetc. Like some people already noted this question is really complex so if you want to promote active tanking for minnies you'll have to compensate in cap balance for them. And compensate ALOT. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
113
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 09:40:00 -
[226] - Quote
What I read in this thread is a lot of whining, and complaining, but not a lot of suggesting . . . what CCP wanted with this thread (im assuming) is not simply a commentary on what we think of these changes, but suggestions; those changes are what they came up with, what can you come up with.
I think everyone agrees that active tanking in PvP is broken, the question is what direction do you want to go with it? I think the problems with active tanking are un-fixable without massive changes to the way the mechanics work (then again it my just take someone more creative than I)
The main problem is that an active tank is effectively invulnerable to X ships but dies almost instantly to X + 1 ships. If you buff active tanks all you're really doing is changing how many "X" is.
Can we please have some suggestions on how to fix active tanking PvP instead of completely unhelpful posts like "THIS CHANGE IS THE SUXXXXORS!!!!!!!1111oneoneone"
The really tough thing to do is to balance PvP and PvE because the easy answer is to make active tanking cost less CPU/PG than plates/extenders and cost less cap, but 1, this makes no sense, and 2 this would really drastically change PvE
IMHO a good start would be to change all the gallente/minmatar bonuses from 7.5% bonus to repair to "5% bonus to repair effects" meaning that it boosts RR coming into the ship too . . . This would at least make the ships not totally suck while you figure out what to do.
What are your thoughts on fixing active tanking in PvP? |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
676
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 09:54:00 -
[227] - Quote
The thing is, as something working pretty much in proper PvP only, active tanks could use additional things to meet the requirements of harsh environment, such as increased sensor strength to resist abusive jamming.
That wasn't me who initially proposed the idea of giving reps (and shield boosters) a sensor strength bonus, but I, for one, quite liked it. Improved resistance to damping should also be there.
Blobtards never face these problems, and on the other hand in their case the bonuses are ulikely to be worth swapping something 'regular' for a mere repper - they can already fit ECCMs and sensor boosters instead. 14 |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 10:18:00 -
[228] - Quote
ate my post :( |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Intrepid Crossing
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 10:21:00 -
[229] - Quote
We appreciate you wanting to consult the player base.
Active tanking is not used as much in pvp due to the high capacitor costs. Unless you change those costs no other changes will change that. The primary consumer of this cap is the personal repair mods. Cut capacitor use to 75% of current use and then test that. Unless you can get the active tanks to run more stably with mwds at least 3-5 minutes you won't see much change.
Your proposals here would make Tengus and Drakes more powerful than they are today. As lower speed means getting hit by more missiles. Thus you'd have to rebalance them again if you carried out what you plan. In fact since speed is an essential element to staying alive if you go to the changes you propose the ship will get hit more often, as such you will need a higher base hp in order for the ship to be viable in combat. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
562
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 10:29:00 -
[230] - Quote
Quote:Active tanking is not used as much in pvp due to the high capacitor costs. Unless you change those costs no other changes will change that. The primary consumer of this cap is the personal repair mods. Cut capacitor use to 75% of current use and then test that. Unless you can get the active tanks to run more stably with mwds at least 3-5 minutes you won't see much change.
Capacitor Boosters, when loaded with the appropriate Capacitor Booster Charges give you moar capacitor with the click of a butan.
On frigates, small NOS is enough to give you capacitor to cycle a small repper- even under neuting.
I've flown and won with active armor tanks in PvP (both on bonused and unbonused hulls), and while it certainly does not scale up to fleet combats, it's amazing when solo or in small gangs. And this is the preferred PvP variety for many players in EVE.
Also, I don't see how a fixed buffer tank can be seen as scaling better with fleet sizes- it requires RR to scale, which is, believe it or not, remote active tanking.
~ Elite forum PvP ~ |
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
75
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 11:09:00 -
[231] - Quote
I've flown for a while with active tanking, and the real issues I've encoutnerd are:
1. Overreliance on Cap Booster charges, and overreliance on Cap in general. This means that most of the time, you are sacrificing a medium slot for a booster, a highslot for a nosferatu, and all the cargo space for charges. I've actually suggested that Active Armor tankign needing ammunition, like Nanite Repair paste, that would be used isntead of Cap. Afterall, your armour isn't magically beign repaired out of nowhere.
2. Tight fittings. Most of the fits for a Active tank need to sacrifice a lot of things. In my case, its DPS.
3. Reliance on high resists. I've found that the active tanking shines on better resisted hull, which is to be expected. In many cases, stuffign a resist rig is more helpful than an active tanking rig. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
677
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 11:30:00 -
[232] - Quote
You people need to realize that 'overreliance' on cap, fitting etc. are GOOD things. These are called CONSEQUENCES. You decide to tank and thus have to PAY for that.
We don't need to remove (or lessen) those natural drawbacks of active tanks, but should introduce proper ones for passive tanking instead. The changes proposed are aimed to do precisely that. 14 |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
372
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 12:00:00 -
[233] - Quote
Throw in a cap battery when active tanking.
It'll make things interesting when someone tries to Nos you FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Kblackjack54
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 12:34:00 -
[234] - Quote
I guess you need to do something to justify the money your grabbing for a non existant job.
If your going to make changes to EVE, make changes that improve the game by fixing stuff you already broke, but this time fix it properly and not just patch it, don't just sit there changing stuff just because you can write code.
Better idea would be for CCP to take this bunch round the back and club em to death before they go much further. |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
75
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 12:36:00 -
[235] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:You people need to realize that 'overreliance' on cap, fitting etc. are GOOD things. These are called CONSEQUENCES. You decide to tank and thus have to PAY for that.
We don't need to remove (or lessen) those natural drawbacks of active tanks, but should introduce proper ones for passive tanking instead. The changes proposed are aimed to do precisely that.
There dont' seem to be consequences to fitting a doubl medium energy neutralizr on hurricanes. Tell me where they have cap issues...
The thing is:
The "Consequences" could come from just having apropriatly-sized ammonition.
Also I'm talking about from a Gallente pilot point of view. The combination of Weapons using Cap + Active rep using cap means you stop being able to rep pretty quickly, unless you cap inject. But then we have... One less medium slot, which in my cas means one less web. (From 1 to 0). |
Jaxley
The Tuskers
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 12:51:00 -
[236] - Quote
The same drawbacks on buffer and active tanking rigs may level the playing field a bit, but it kind of seems like the easy way out; "Want balance? Make it behave the same."
However, the impact of agility on PvP seems overlooked. Have you considered playing around with that
Agility is actually more important than top speed for a Gallente blaster boat trying to get close. If I can reach my top speed slightly quicker, I may have a better chance to outmaneuver a ship that has a higher top speed than mine (i.e. that's able to outpace me on a straight path)
"Heavy armor is more agile than heavy shield" may be awkward to explain, but essentially this could be a good way to balance shield kiters and armor brawlers. Less stale than downright equalizing rigs and bringing top speeds closer together at least
"Shield = faster and more agile for a tad less EHP" doesn't really work in any case imho, even if they were slowed down a bit by rigs
TL;DR - Agility, may wanna look into it. http://twitch.tv/EVEJaxley |
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
111
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 13:19:00 -
[237] - Quote
Roime wrote:The simplest solution is:
- Shield extender rigs add shield HP and reduce armour HP - Shield resist rigs increase shield resists and reduce armor resists - Shield boost rigs eat Grid (or increase booster module cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)
- Trimarks add armour HP and reduce shield HP - Armour resists rigs increase armour resists and reduce shield resists - Armour rep rigs eat CPU (or increase repper cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)
- Passive shield regeneration is removed (has no armour counterpart, not sure if this is needed due to niche role of PST)
Increase should always be slightly more than reduction. Essentially you just take from your secondary tank and add it to your primary tank, playing on your ship's strenghts.
This removes the whole problem of balancing the current secondary penalties, leaving only balancing of the ships themselves.
(Edited for better active tank penalties) I really like this idea. |
GRIEV3R
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 13:27:00 -
[238] - Quote
Luba Cibre wrote:Roime wrote:The simplest solution is:
- Shield extender rigs add shield HP and reduce armour HP - Shield resist rigs increase shield resists and reduce armor resists - Shield boost rigs eat Grid (or increase booster module cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)
- Trimarks add armour HP and reduce shield HP - Armour resists rigs increase armour resists and reduce shield resists - Armour rep rigs eat CPU (or increase repper cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)
- Passive shield regeneration is removed (has no armour counterpart, not sure if this is needed due to niche role of PST)
Increase should always be slightly more than reduction. Essentially you just take from your secondary tank and add it to your primary tank, playing on your ship's strenghts.
This removes the whole problem of balancing the current secondary penalties, leaving only balancing of the ships themselves.
(Edited for better active tank penalties) I really like this idea.
+1 for this idea. Makes a lot of sense.
Additionally, I support any new ideas that while make Gallente more viable. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
168
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 13:27:00 -
[239] - Quote
Active tanking does scale - Self-repping for small gangs, Remote Reps for large gangs.
If Gallente and Minmatar are the true active tanking races then their bonuses should be applied to self and remote repping. These ships should be the ones favored for remote reps, not the Caldari/Amarr ships with high resistances. Caldari/Amarr should have high buffer and low reps. Gallente/Minmatar should have low buffer and high reps.
Proposal: Repping Rigs Changes - Affect both self and RR repping (received).
Reduce the amount of energy needed to run self reppers. Self-repping with hybrids requires too many cap boosters (uses too many midslots) to help them effectively tank.
|
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.24 13:28:00 -
[240] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking.
Hi Ytterbium,
Speedpenalties NEVER boost smallscalewarfare. I really wonder why this look like a good change to you. Makes me feel you never were into smallscale what brings me to the next question: Why did they give you this task?
It doesnt matter what you / ccp wants. You make the things we want or we stop paying you alltogether. Ofc. you are free to do what "you" want then.
With this change to rigs, you are hurting smallscalewarfare "again", at least for minmatar / nanopilots. I dont think thats what you want to have.
Activetanking doesnt have a place in current 0.0 warfare and your jokepatch wont change anything there. But it will remove nanopilots and force them to use activetanks or forget about rigs alltogether = it hurts lowsec / smallscale pvp.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |