Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:37:00 -
[121]
Originally the definition of a stealth bomber was as follows:
1: A frigate sized vessel capable of mounting BS sized missile weapons.
2: A ship whose primary target was cruiser and BS class vessels as its weapons systems were not designed to deal with small, fast vessels. Its bonus to explosion radius was to enable it to do full damage against cruiser, which it could not do without said bonus.
3: A ship that approached its targets using its cloak and a speed boost when cloaked.
4: Its chief vulnerability was intended to be fast frigates and fast locking ships of all sizes.
If you wish to dispute any of the above, I suggest you look up the original dev blogs introducing stealth bombers to the EVE community.
Now look at your arguments or support of the changes in this light.
I'm not going to comment my personal views until I get my hands on one to try out, other than to say it is essential that the bomber pilots ordinance (whether it be torpedo or bomb) absolutely must still detonate if the bomber cloaks or warps out. Otherwise these proposals will not end up having the desired effect. The increased speed bonus makes the ship much more survivable and useful (it is vital actually), but survivability means little if you can not be reasonably effective as well.
===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you. |
Xerxes Vorian
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:47:00 -
[122]
I say leave well enough alone. bombers are great ships as they are, if you're trying to boost them to make people use them, there are a lot more ships that need it a lot more badly.
some of my thoughts on stealth bombers.
I understand that these are very difficult ships to balance, they can either be invincible, or equivalent to very expensive suicide kestrels.
I'm strongly opposed to switching them to torps, unless you doubled the range, either by flight time or velocity. and reduced the explosion radius and increased the explosion velocity. and make them exaclty like cruse missiles.
If you really need to boost them, borrow from the destroyer's plan: give them either a damage bonus, or more missile+high slots off set by a ROF penalty. I wouldn't mind if the net DPS was actually reduced in exchange for a higher alpha. play with -50% ROF and either a 75 to 100% damage bonus or add 2 or 3 more launcher slots.
Bombs are a separate issue, and also very hard to balance. To be honest, I think they were a mistake. (I also think the doomsday was a mistake, but that's a different rant) A start would be to make the bomb launcher not use a launcher slot, like scan probe launchers. let it fit along with it's 3x cruise. no one uses the turret slot(s) anyway, except possibly a lucky offline civilian miner.
one thing I do like about you ideas is the speedwhilecloaked boost, maybe closer to 750m/s than 1200, about 800-900. this would make them an excellent counter to falcons, to which I don't like the changes either, and am now going to go post about.
summary:
torps: no increased cloaked velocity: definite maybe double alpha, but same or slightly less DPS.
|
Tom Hanks
Raype Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:19:00 -
[123]
I think that we should change multiple things about the stealth. I have perfect skills in the ship and it is still extremely limited. I would like to see these changes....
Make Bombs Track Targets like a normal missile. Also increase their velocity.
More Bomb Variety There is currently a rather limited selection of bombs to choose from and I would like to see much greater variety for use against frigate sized ships (they can avoid bombs usually anyway) or "shaped charge" bombs which could do very heavy damage to a single target with a % chance of missing maybe? Cluster bombs for frigs?
Mine laying??? Why not allow them to lay mines (limited amount, and must be on grid and decloak to lock and fire them off, they could function like a bomb for 0.0 or a explosive formed penetrator or directed blast device) This could allow them to have another handy use, and make defending a home system more interesting.
Grid and fitting slots The ships need more CPU please. Also I think they need to fit 3 launchers, plus a bomb launcher. It is ridiculous that I have to have one or the other. Isnt the ship designed to do this sort of stuff?
Covert ops cloak Nuff said on that already.
Cause defender missiles to increase in use??? If the stealths actually became rather effective and people used them more, then people might actually begin using defender missiles more often to counter stealths, as well as potentially introduce Anti bomb counter measures
"Run I thought Garreck was here!!!" -Aralis, seconds before being podded.
|
Vissuddha
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:29:00 -
[124]
I suggest you fix the bombs before you focus energy on anything else. Deploying a bomb on an inty going 500 m/s & not getting a KM is essentially making bombs useless. CCP lowered the price of bombs by increasing the yield on each run. At the same time made them completely useless against a moving targets(unless it has a sig radius the size of a barn).
Putting torps on a stealth bomber might be a cool feature but do you think it will entice more people to use them? I think not! Torps velocity is so slow that "blinking" will not be an option.
FIX Bombs........PLEASE!!!
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:45:00 -
[125]
Holy ****! Does CCP even play this game?
What part of uncloaking in a 1100-1200 HP ship at scram/disruptor range don't you understand CCP? Do you even know the range on torps?
****ing ******s. |
Jim Raynor
Caldari Clarity of Purpose
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:12:00 -
[126]
suicide bombers, that dont kill anything, lovely :\ ------ I'll make a sig later. |
galphi
Gallente Unitary Senate Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:46:00 -
[127]
Yeah definitely like this idea, the travel time on cruise missiles really impacts a bomber's ability to be useful sometimes. A very fast, cloaked vessel able to pound away at bigger ships up close is brilliant, and it fits in with the bomb launchers much better. Just make sure their non-cloaked velocity isn't too bad either, they'll need to orbit at a reasonable speed to stay alive. Although I suppose an afterburner could be a standard fitting now
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:53:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Aeronith Changing the weapon type for stealth bombers isn't as likely to get people using them as, say, letting them use covops cloaks.
You want to fix bombers this right here is it. i know you guys are in iceland... and may not be familar exactly with the phrase stealth as we in the US are.
Stealth means it can move around freely with very little chance of getting caught. a Sb is only able to be stealthed while its on the grid. anytime it changes grids its no longer a stealth bomber just a bomber which is ....like most of the time since traveling is a much required feature in this game.
give it the abilty to use a covert cloak. and take away 1 high slot but leave the 3 launcher points. the cloak is going to take a slot which leaves you with 3 slots. so you could choose long range cruise missle platform or you could position the bomber in an ideal location COVERTLY to release bombs on unsuspecting targets.
If you want both fix stealth bombers and bombs heres an idea: - covert cloak - lose 1 high slot - leave cruise missles as an option - allow the fitting of 3 bomb launchers - decrease bomb damage by 2/3s( lower bomb cost/material cost some maybe 25-33%) -increase range by 25%( not explosion range but launched range) - give a 10 sec cloaking delay after a bomb is launched to prevent instant recloaking.
Turning a stealth bomber into a short range torpedo boat.. is going to make them completely obsolete. ..nerfing ships isnt the way to get us to fly more of a varied setup its a way of getting us to all fly the same ship. bombers only appeal right now is they are long range and good dps for a frigate size ship. they can still be easily popped at long range. apoc with t2 tachs and aurora crystals passive targeter and sensor boosters= instapop.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:07:00 -
[129]
Dear CCP Chronotis,
Stealth bombers were released as a counter to "fleets". That was their main role. They fail at this. Please fix them to fit their designed role.
A short range paper thin frigate designed to shoot at battleships sounds like a terrible idea. You may imagine of waves of stealth bombers doing hit and runs vs battleship formations, but a single cruiser/support ship thrown into that battleship formation and stealth bombers will pop like popcorn.
However, it is better than what stealth bombers are now and is worth a go on Sisi.
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Finnroth
Caldari The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:15:00 -
[130]
Let each torp also warp scramble for 3-5sec and this sounds nice, but only torps doesn't accomplish anything imo.
|
|
TRUP2
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:58:00 -
[131]
Do anything you want with bombers....But make covert cyno enable in cyno-jammed systems!!!! plz!!!
on theme
1. You will just make stels bomber another dead ship...
2. If you give them torpoedos then give ability to hit small targets
3. Before doing anything get to normal your bomb idea...now it's just dead one function in eve.
You saw Bleck ops in eve? no....there are usefull....you gonna get stels bobmers to there grave know...
|
Miyamoto Shigesuke
Jugis Modo Utopia Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:45:00 -
[132]
The cloak speed bonus would be good.
However the torpedoes idea is horrible. A short range bomber is a dead bomber. I suppose instead of giving siege launchers allow to fit 3 bomb launchers. I line with this allow loading torpedoes and cruise missiles into the bomb launcher.
|
Thenoran
Caldari Tranquility Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:47:00 -
[133]
Hmmm interesting, but Stealth Bombers and close range will never work under the current sytem, you will get auto-locked backed instantly, preventing you from cloaking, following by a short episode of wtfpwned.
On top of that, a player could just have his drones orbit and any Stealth Bomber that attacks him would have some serious problems.
Also, limiting Stealth Bombers to an anti-Battleship role reduces the amount of fun significantly, I spend a lot of my Stealth Bomber time in low-sec, mainly fighting Cruisers and the occasional Battlecruiser, a Battleship is somewhat of a rare sight outside of a big fleet.
What I had in mind of a Stealth Bomber is similar to a U-Boat, stay stealthed, fire and get out. However in EVE, this can't be done, as you will get locked back and can't recloak.
Options
Let them use Torpedoes, but at ranges of about 60-70km or so, which is generally outside the range of most ships, but not by all that much. Give Torpedoes the needed velocity to make it viable to use them at those ranges to really scare the target, I'm talking 7500m/s or more here.
Modify the Explosion Radius bonus into a Radius & Explosion velocity bonus, but not as much as it was, give the Torpedoes a somewhat worse Radius and Velocity value than a Heavy Assault Missile.
Increased cloak velocity is good, I'd love to see that in action.
Increased CPU/Grid is almost a neccesity, so I applaud this.
Give Stealth Bombers the options to use both Siege and Cruise Launchers. Siege Launchers would work well against Battleships, Cruise Launchers would work against Cruisers.
Other
If you really want Stealth Bombers up close, they HAVE to be able to prevent either getting locked (right now they have to choose between Sensor Boosters to lock targets fast, or Sensor Damps) very fast, or be able to cloak while locked for something like 5-10 seconds after decloaking. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:58:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Threv Echandari @Polinus, I didn't want to comment on other players comments (other than Meryn's ) and just keep it to the topic @ hand but......
1. Theres more to Eve PvP than 0.0 (I know its hard to see that out there but its true). 2. SB's are Team players and work well when others are doing the tackling for you. 3. 150KM Sniper BS Don't do squat @150KM when Sensor damped by 1 Bomber who keeps his Tranversal up (and thats after the Damp nerf.. granted the SB won't kill him. But its DPS that can't easily be negated by said BS. 4. It appears that you have never flown a Stealth bomber (at least in its role) 5. SB's are not solopwnmobiles... The Extra DPS from Torps @ 40KM will be laughed off as the SB dies a horrible death.
1. Yes there is but at same tiem you cannot discout the 0.0 sicne its IS where 2/3 of the engagements happen) 2. Of course are team players and taht is why you use several at same time to alpha strike something. 3. An normal apoc will target you at 100 km even with 2 dampeners on him. Also not hard at all to hit frigates that range if they stay too long around (and you need since your missiles take centruries to arrive) 4. I have a lot. And long range is HORRIBLE. because on that scenario a sniper hac is 10 times better. All success I ever seen was at vbery close range uncloak a small group pop a hauler or cruier before it can warp out 5. Its NOT about DPS. its about ALPHA STRIKE!!!
|
Seishomaru
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:01:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Thenoran Hmmm interesting, but Stealth Bombers and close range will never work under the current sytem, you will get auto-locked backed instantly, preventing you from cloaking, following by a short episode of wtfpwned.
On top of that, a player could just have his drones orbit and any Stealth Bomber that attacks him would have some serious problems.
Also, limiting Stealth Bombers to an anti-Battleship role reduces the amount of fun significantly, I spend a lot of my Stealth Bomber time in low-sec, mainly fighting Cruisers and the occasional Battlecruiser, a Battleship is somewhat of a rare sight outside of a big fleet.
What I had in mind of a Stealth Bomber is similar to a U-Boat, stay stealthed, fire and get out. However in EVE, this can't be done, as you will get locked back and can't recloak.
Options
Let them use Torpedoes, but at ranges of about 60-70km or so, which is generally outside the range of most ships, but not by all that much. Give Torpedoes the needed velocity to make it viable to use them at those ranges to really scare the target, I'm talking 7500m/s or more here.
Modify the Explosion Radius bonus into a Radius & Explosion velocity bonus, but not as much as it was, give the Torpedoes a somewhat worse Radius and Velocity value than a Heavy Assault Missile.
Increased cloak velocity is good, I'd love to see that in action.
Increased CPU/Grid is almost a neccesity, so I applaud this.
Give Stealth Bombers the options to use both Siege and Cruise Launchers. Siege Launchers would work well against Battleships, Cruise Launchers would work against Cruisers.
Other
If you really want Stealth Bombers up close, they HAVE to be able to prevent either getting locked (right now they have to choose between Sensor Boosters to lock targets fast, or Sensor Damps) very fast, or be able to cloak while locked for something like 5-10 seconds after decloaking.
keepign cruise as well is OK. But the rest is not ok. Huge range on torps make no difference if you are already goign to keep cruises. At most a 50% velocity increase would be reasonable.
Also you do not need smaller explosion radius. People need to stat to bring a few target painters to every gang. Finnaly a good boost to target painters and people fail to realize that.
|
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:01:00 -
[136]
I like it. It just takes 2 frigates to take down a BS ^^
|Black Sinisters| |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:05:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Originally the definition of a stealth bomber was as follows:
1: A frigate sized vessel capable of mounting BS sized missile weapons.
2: A ship whose primary target was cruiser and BS class vessels as its weapons systems were not designed to deal with small, fast vessels. Its bonus to explosion radius was to enable it to do full damage against cruiser, which it could not do without said bonus.
3: A ship that approached its targets using its cloak and a speed boost when cloaked.
4: Its chief vulnerability was intended to be fast frigates and fast locking ships of all sizes.
If you wish to dispute any of the above, I suggest you look up the original dev blogs introducing stealth bombers to the EVE community.
Now look at your arguments or support of the changes in this light.
I'm not going to comment my personal views until I get my hands on one to try out, other than to say it is essential that the bomber pilots ordinance (whether it be torpedo or bomb) absolutely must still detonate if the bomber cloaks or warps out. Otherwise these proposals will not end up having the desired effect. The increased speed bonus makes the ship much more survivable and useful (it is vital actually), but survivability means little if you can not be reasonably effective as well.
Sorry, but as many times happened, all that blog was pure idealism. Small, slow, no matter how heavily armored target will never survive against cruiser weapon, and killing BS with such puny damage dealing was only possible due to SB's capability of handling small targets. Expensive as hell, fragile bombers were good anti-drone/frigate tools. Yes, destroyers could handle it all, most likely cheaper, and that's a choice as in all EVE - you have options and you choose what you feel comfortable with. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Thenoran
Caldari Tranquility Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:05:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Jalif I like it. It just takes 2 frigates to take down a BS ^^
With the proposed changes it would take 40 Stealth Bombers to Alpha strike one. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:09:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Marlenus Edited by: Marlenus on 24/03/2009 22:19:45 I love the idea of my bomber getting an anti-battleship role. To me that makes much more sense than the "alpha-pop small ships" role that it used to have.
Forget the covert ops cloak. It doesn't make sense for the class. A bomber's cloak is for lying in wait -- it gives a huge advantage to the man who correctly predicts where the fight will take place, and then gets there first. I have no problem with that.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that an anti-battleship role is pretty pointless without enough alpha-strike to take advantage of the surprise conferred by the cloak. And as others have pointed out, there's no alpha to speak of here. Given the extreme close range, this won't be survivable. If you had a shot at killing a battleship in less than a lol-sized gang, that'd be OK -- but I'm not seeing that.
The other huge role that the stealth bomber has always had is area denial. Against anybody who doesn't have a fast tackler, you can come in at range and make them go away. This has many uses if you're doing anything except racking up killmails. And this role looks to be lost with the proposed tweaks.
As others have noted, torpedoes especially should be fire and forget. To use the submarine analogy, right now you have to surface, fire, and then stay on the surface until your torpedoes hit before you can "dive" (recloak). Submarines, of course, can fire without surfacing at all. We could maybe live with surfacing to fire if we could dive immediately (recloak).
Or, how about giving a range DECREASE on the torps but letting us fire cloaked, like a submerged submarine? Now, THAT would be funny. A battleship without support would have to GTFO, a battleship with support would have an excellent chance of catching and decloaking the bomber or (more likely) driving it out of range. Great fun to be had by all. (You might want to brighten up torpedoes visually, or make them leave an exhaust trail.)
The way I see it a fragile bomber has to get one of (a) impressive alpha; (2) the protection of range, or (3) some sort of better on-grid use of stealth. Asking us engage inside warp disruption range in a paper thin frigate we can't insure, with no chance of quick and decisive victory, just isn't going to work -- especially when we're already looking at a highly specialized ship class that's bonused for attacking one specific target category only.
If you can fire adn imediately recloak then you are 100% imune to anythign. That is NOT good game mechanics.
If you add a little delay to that.. and Tcha Dam!!! you already have that. At short range the torps will take like 3-4 seconds to hit target. Just make an worse ROF with even larger alpha strike and a tiny bit increased speed on the torps (not because of range, but to arrive faster. Also decrease the signature of SB to interceptor sized. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
S'vart Tseirgn
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:12:00 -
[140]
OP: An interesting concept. I'd like to see a massive alpha, but at the cost of reduced rof. Also a velocity bonus to the torps would be a plus as well...it would give the bombers a chance of staying outside web range (anything smaller than a bs could still get them easily though).
|
|
Jallem Sims
Minmatar Quantum Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:13:00 -
[141]
while i am not a SB pilot, i have come up against a few.... even little cloaky gangs of them in my BS.
i like the suggestions.... having to be closer range makes them more of a target and feels they will be more involved within the fight. The BS pilot will stay to fight it out rather than reapproaching gate or warping off. And gang of SB will be very nasty indeed!
however, from what i understand torps are slow.... maybe a bonus to flight time? that way they will actually hit before the SB gets insta popped or can warp out.
increase in ship volocity while cloaked is a great idea.... everyone always goes on about having covert ops cloaks on! I think the speed is going to be enough to race around cloaked.... i mean... i cloaked ship traveling 1200 m/s is insane!
anyway.... this is a forward step. and a good one |
retro mike
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:19:00 -
[142]
Easy-To-Follow 3-steps to Make Torp Bomber Viable!!!!!
1. +12.5% damage and -50% rof.
3. 3 siege slots and a seperate bomb launcher.
3. Fix Bombs!
Grz
|
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:22:00 -
[143]
Give em TP bonus as well ;0
Good lord, this will be a ton of fun if you do it!
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
Thenoran
Caldari Tranquility Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:22:00 -
[144]
Originally by: retro mike
Easy-To-Follow 3-steps to Make Torp Bomber Viable!!!!!
1. +12.5% damage and -50% rof.
3. 3 siege slots and a seperate bomb launcher.
3. Fix Bombs!
Grz
You still won't Alpha anything, you'll still get shot up, and even a single Bomb won't make much of a dent on a Battleship. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:33:00 -
[145]
Hmm... My first reaction was typical "OMFG do u nubs even play?!"
Then I thought about other T2 frigs. Like say, assault ships and interceptors. Which people will happily take up against BSs in small groups. Give SBs more tank or speed to do something similar, and the torp idea would be very viable. Would make anti-frig support almost mandatory for large ships.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
Thenoran
Caldari Tranquility Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:36:00 -
[146]
Some small amount of survivability should be added to a Stealth Bomber. If it can survive atleast one or two 'hits' without too much trouble, people will be more encouraged to use them the ranges you want them too.
Give them the full T2 resistances and a small increase in shield/armor amount. All Stealth Bombers should be given an additional mid slot for a Sensor Booster, Damp or Shield Extender. Another problem is drones, 5 light drones will auto-engage you and then you're pretty much dead. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:39:00 -
[147]
Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.
We do have enough ways of dealing with battleships so no need for another "counter" which will die to said BS anyways (really engaging geddon or AC pest with 5 bombers will leave you with 5 dead bombers).
|
Thenoran
Caldari Tranquility Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:41:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Im still wondering why anti-BS instead of anti-cap ships system? make 20 bombers able to instapop carrier (bomb launchers anyone?) with 5 minute rof or something. Or just give em 500% bonus damage vs capital ships.
We do have enough ways of dealing with battleships so no need for another "counter" which will die to said BS anyways (really engaging geddon or AC pest with 5 bombers will leave you with 5 dead bombers).
Make them even less fun to fly be restricting what they can attack? Also, if 20 T2 frigs could instapop a Carrier, Capital ships would be useless altogether. They should remain able to be a threat to anything Cruiser sized or above, and Frigates/Destroyers if they aren't moving around. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:42:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Spurty Give em TP bonus as well ;0
Good lord, this will be a ton of fun if you do it!
Would be nice...but perhaps overpowering :) (Even without a bonus we probably use one in our fits :) )
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Jedziah
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:45:00 -
[150]
On the note of stealth bombers...
1. Allow the use of bombs in low sec. Worse that happens is someone loses a bomber to gate/station guns. It will increase the use of bombs to no end.
2. Chuck in a pretty meaty velocity/flight time bonus on those torps to get them to say 40km with a standard torp and maybe 75km max with Javelin. (As Sarge said, getting them to at least where the Raven is, is viable)
3. Covert ops cloaks would be OP in my opinion. For the odd one or two, maybe not so much but when a gang of 15 torp spewing, cloaked warping, murder beasts go around, the call for balance will be needed again...
4. The Stealth bombers need to warp at 14 au/s with the covops counterpart. This should counter the problem of 18 warps to cover 200 Au etc.
Allowing them to deploy faster in this way will also be a serious bonus.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |