EVE Search - Stealth Bombers II - A new focused role

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Stealth Bombers II - A new focused role

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 34 post(s)
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.04.01 20:28:00 - [421] Originally by: RedSplat You know, letting bombers fit Cruise OR Torps, then fixing Bombs to make them an alpha weapon for use against BS (They would be suitable if they did perhaps 10% damage to a targets prime tank after resists, at the current costs 10 bombs to break your standard buffered BS tank isnt obscene, add in that they are 'one shot', or have a reload time in minutes...) Ah what the hell, CCP wan everyone to fly Bombers in packs of 50 and lose all of them to destroy 1 or 2 BS; assuming the support or ANY frigates or drones present dont wipe out most of the bombers before they volley the second BS. Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)? How many SBs are you designing this change around having 5,10,20,100? Is there any plan to increase EHP of SBs now that they are close range brawlers? If not why would you take an SB over say a BC or better yet a BS?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.04.01 20:49:00 - [422] In response to a few comments above: Quote: I use my bomber as anti-support, so I'll have to figure out another ship to use instead. Somebody has to shoo those pesky falcons off the field. I sympathize. I have used my SBs as a very effective anti-support ship in the past. That being said, I have just as often used it to bring significant damage to bear on battleships as well. Often having top rankings in damage if the actual kill time was relatively short. Quote: So tell me, I guess SB need to be flying with falcons to kill BS's right? Seems like a match made in heaven doesn't it? Something you might send in with a BO covert bridge perhaps, to raid behind enemy lines? Not poking fun, but honestly most well organized bomber groups I have been with mounted an EW module of one type or another on their ships, or had a recon or two with them to provide the EW support. For that matter, most roaming frigate gangs do the same thing. That many EW devices in play are going to have a fairly adverse affect on their target(s), stacking nerf or not. It will take some tinkering at the new shorter ranges to determine which mix gives the best bang for the buck. Quote: I read that someone said the counter to SB are frigs and assault frigs. Well I will tell you this every ship is a counter to a SB. True, if you are talking about a 1 on 1. However that is a rarity and you know it. However in groups these new SBs have the potential to move through defended territory with impunity and take out unwary large vessels quite effectively. Tweaks will have to be done, of course, but that's what this is all about. Versus a large gate camp a SB group would tend not to engage, but instead would move past it or perhaps do their best to split up the group. Now if that same gate camp were assaulted by conventional ships (that were taken to an optimal position by warping to the SBers) then I would absolutely say they could lend a significant amount of damage to the affair once the camps attention was focused elsewhere... and then be of great assistance in providing warpin's to the hunt down the survivors. Quote: I find it weird that a frig size ship is supposed to be a bomber to hurt battleships. Interesting comment. Might I suggest watching any StarWars movie that featured B-Wings or Y-Wings being used to take out Star Destroyers to get the general idea. Although the idea of heavy bombers/fighters to take out much larger vessels as been frequently used in the genre. Or perhaps look to WW2 for examples of how Dive Bombers or Torpedo Bombers were used to great effect against large, heavily armored naval vessels. ===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you.
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.04.01 20:49:00 - [423] Edited by: Pac SubCom on 01/04/2009 20:54:13 After testing the new bombers I feel confident that these bombers can do almost exactly what the old bombers could, albeit with a shift in target selection. On second thought, the 30 second recloaking delay is no real hindrance and can be worked around. Essentially it should function as advertised. A little bit more cpu would not be wrong however, since now ROF is essential in addition to EW. The only tear left to shed is the skilling of Torps V. --------------- ∞ TQFE
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 20:52:00 - [424] Originally by: Vall Kor If not why would you take an SB over say a BC or better yet a BS? As it stands i suspect i will only be flying my Bomber in Lolfleets, ganking poorly fit ratting BS just 'cause i can. In any other serious situation i would stick to flying a cruiser, BC or Frigate; they can all kill a BS, albeit only certain setups in the cse of a frig. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 20:56:00 - [425] Originally by: Pac SubCom After testing the new bombers I feel confident that these bombers can do almost exactly what the old bombers could, albeit with a shift in target selection. You are telling me that SB's can now two volley thier designated by design targets of choice? I want one of these SB's that can two volley a BS. Or maybe you meant they can still Alpha frigates as they could previously? Hint: They cant! Or maybe you are being sarcastic or facetious and my brain is tired Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.
Yaay Reikoku KenZoku	Posted - 2009.04.01 20:59:00 - [426] Since stealth bombers are stealth, and since they're now very close range, why not add a bonus that gives them 15% reduction in sig radius per level of cov ops rather than a torp explosion bonus. That way, they will have somewhere along the lines of 10 sig radius which will give their torps actual time to hit their target before having to warp out. I'm all for no more pg for defense, but they do need some sorta defensive love. Sig radius for something stealthy just seems logical. Light drones would still be able to counter them easily with that sorta sig radius. DD changes Docking PVP games
Pedro Sangre Ars ex Discordia	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:04:00 - [427] Any chance at a visual indication of the 30s cloak cooldown?
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:04:00 - [428] Quote: In any other serious situation i would stick to flying a cruiser, BC or Frigate; they can all kill a BS, albeit only certain setups in the cse of a frig. Quote: You are telling me that SB's can now two volley thier designated by design targets of choice? I want one of these SB's that can two volley a BS. Shocked Interestingly, none of the ships you mentioned can two volley a BS either. ===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you.
Vall Kor Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:10:00 - [429] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Vall Kor If not why would you take an SB over say a BC or better yet a BS? As it stands i suspect i will only be flying my Bomber in Lolfleets, ganking poorly fit ratting BS just 'cause i can. In any other serious situation i would stick to flying a cruiser, BC or Frigate; they can all kill a BS, albeit only certain setups in the cse of a frig. Yep pretty much this after testing; these ships are useless against their intended target. Battleship just have way too much HP for SBs to be effective against. You'll be better casing these solo battleships (Still don't know where we're supposed to find these) in a fast moving HAC or BC gang. ---- From testing I found the SB is too defenseless (shocking I know), Needs much, much more alpha, the 30 second re-cloaking needs to be rethought. Fixes: Cloaking while targeted or lol fire while cloaked BS tank on a frigate or back to range tank. More front loaded damage - Way more alpha Faster RoF on launchers - DPS Basically the devs are forcing a paper tank to fight one of the highest HP ships in the game and not giving us the tools to kill that target. This needs to be either a much heavier armored ship class (HACs come to mind) or use range as the tank (current SBs with a tweak or two).
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:18:00 - [430] Originally by: Ranger 1 Interestingly, none of the ships you mentioned can two volley a BS either. Interestingly that was not what i suggested, which i am assuming you know. Interestingly you chose to combine separate posts on different issues to suggest i was insinuating something i didnt. Interestingly You seem to have chosen to ignore that i was noting the previous ability of SB's being able to alpha targets, as oposed to the role being designed for them where they WONT be able to alpha or deal significant burst damage to thier new intended targets. Did you just want to invent some imagined error in my post to argue about? A Cruiser or BC or in some cases a frigate can all kill a BS, solo; of course its a LOT faster with 2 or three... The proposed SB's will not be able to. SB's are being proposed as high alpha glass cannons, yet being given a weapons system only effective vs' targets where that ammount of alpha will be largely irrelevant. The only pro the new SB's have i the covops cloak + covert cyno use. Sadly there is little they can kill that cant be done by a number of other ships. Cheaper. More effectively. With a larger target envelope. Faster. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.

Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:26:00 - [431] i am 99.9% against this change, BUT, there is a but! If they do go ahead with this change, i dont see why cov op cloak should give us 30sec recloak, we will be dead <10sec.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:26:00 - [432] Edited by: RedSplat on 01/04/2009 21:29:34 Originally by: Vall Kor Basically the devs are forcing a paper tank to fight one of the highest HP ships in the game and not giving us the tools to kill that target. This needs to be either a much heavier armored ship class (HACs come to mind) or use range as the tank (current SBs with a tweak or two). That wouldnt be so bad IF SB's did more Burst Dmg to a BS. I dont want to see SB's soloing BS, what i do want to see is a well coordinated group of say 5 (ship investment considerable) being able to drop a standard combat fit (balance between plate and gank) BS before said BS can kill more than 1 or possibly 2 SB's. I see a key soloution to this being the role of Bomb use- namely un-nerfing them and also allowing bomb use in Lowsec at least and preferably EVERYWHERE. (No you wont see SB's being the bane of Empire dwellers, due to concord, bomb and t2 frigate costs and Sec penaltys.) Bomb damage is sig based to an extent, tweaking the numbers so it only does anything like full damage to BS shouldnt be an issue; and really this is already the case i am told. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.
Zantaz	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:27:00 - [433] Guys on test, can the stealth bomber now fit a plate and a repper, or DCU and resists? Or, while engaging battleships, toe to toe, are they supposed to be shield tanked now? Are the new slots low or meds? How about the tons of new grid and cap, is the fitting enough for small extenders or 800mm plates? Or have they gotten a major speed boost, so they can speed tank? Surely Chronitis has thought this all out. I can hardly wait to try out the new changes and start attacking battleships! I can't wait to try out the new tank fits!
Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:30:00 - [434] Originally by: Zantaz Guys on test, can the stealth bomber now fit a plate and a repper, or DCU and resists? Or, while engaging battleships, toe to toe, are they supposed to be shield tanked now? Are the new slots low or meds? How about the tons of new grid and cap, is the fitting enough for small extenders or 800mm plates? Or have they gotten a major speed boost, so they can speed tank? Surely Chronitis has thought this all out. I can hardly wait to try out the new changes and start attacking battleships! I can't wait to try out the new tank fits! lol good thing we got the test server for trying crazy stunts like this^
Eigof Tahr Dirt Nap Squad	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:33:00 - [435] Edited by: Eigof Tahr on 01/04/2009 21:33:43 Today's version is much better than yesterdays: I do my testing with lvl 4's across the board for missile skills (lvl 2 for warhead upgrades). If I get around to it, or there is much begging, I will google docs my results in a spread sheet for you. Manticore, firing juggernaut. My summary is as follows: To hit a Raven: 0-117m/s hit for full dmg every missile, 725. Ab, going 276: 2TP or 1 Web for full dmg. MWD, 825m/s : full dmg all the time. To hit a drake: 0m/s: 390dmg 0m/s 3 tp: 616dmg 175m/s: same results as stationary 0m/s 3 tp: same results as stationary AB, 361m/s: 232-391dmg (0tp, 3tp) AB, 180m/s, 1 web: Same as stationary. MWD: Same as stationary Caracal: Om/s: 233 om/s 3 tp: 414 222m/s: 223 222m/s 3tp: 384 MWD, 1340m/s: 223 MWD, 1340m/s, 3tp: 330 Side note: T2 torps still suck in dmg comparison to navy. Range bonus from javs gets you extra range but less dmg by 22%. These numbers in comparison to yesterdays: ~220% increase in dmg to moving cruisers. ~20% increase in dmg to stationary cruisers. ~30% increase in dmg to battleships. (saved over and lost my numbers for bc) Frigates are still being hit for crap. In comparison to the cruise missiles on tq: There will be higher dps to BS and BC becuase of the rate of fire difference. Overall still less dps to cruisers size and much less to frigates due to sig radius issues. ------- A rose, by any other name, would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation."
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:36:00 - [436] Originally by: Polinus Originally by: OneSock How are you supposed to alpha small targets with torps ? Does not compute. Stick with cruise and range bonuses. with target painters... 4 hounds.. 1 TP each. Can insta pop a HAC. 1 shot.. 1 kill.. Where you saw such puny HC? 4 hounds is like 20k Alfa. My PvE Sacrilege has more EHP and with 7 sec duration can eat you for breakfast. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Ranger 1 Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:39:00 - [437] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Ranger 1 Interestingly, none of the ships you mentioned can two volley a BS either. Interestingly that was not what i suggested, which i am assuming you know. Interestingly you chose to combine separate posts on different issues to suggest i was insinuating something i didnt. Interestingly You seem to have chosen to ignore that i was noting the previous ability of SB's being able to alpha targets, as oposed to the role being designed for them where they WONT be able to alpha or deal significant burst damage to thier new intended targets. Did you just want to invent some imagined error in my post to argue about? A Cruiser or BC or in some cases a frigate can all kill a BS, solo; of course its a LOT faster with 2 or three... The proposed SB's will not be able to. SB's are being proposed as high alpha glass cannons, yet being given a weapons system only effective vs' targets where that ammount of alpha will be largely irrelevant. The only pro the new SB's have i the covops cloak + covert cyno use. Sadly there is little they can kill that cant be done by a number of other ships. Cheaper. More effectively. With a larger target envelope. Faster. Actually, both of your posts were directed at whether SBs would be effective against BS as opposed the the ship classes you mentioned you'd rather fly. Your two posts would seem to be directly related. If you are just making random, unsubstantiated, sarcastic comments to take up space in this thread you then have my apologies. For a frigate, cruiser, and in most cases BC the BS generally has to have the lolpoor fit you mentioned in one of your previous... random... posts. Of course it can be done on occasion, if the situation is right (read a BS not equipped with the right drones, no NOS, no web, all big gank but poor tracking and no tank... actually under those conditions the SB could kill it too, but faster) but that isn't what is being discussed here. But if you insist that a ship has no value unless it can own in a 1 vs 1 against a battleship, then I'm afraid you are in for a big disappointment. I find it "interesting" that you still fly other frigates and cruisers, since in the vast majority of circumstances they have the same problem. ===== Yeah, VC is back, and we have a bone to pick with you.
Armadalla Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:40:00 - [438] Ok, so the torps are basically set in stone and the role of the Bomber is now to hit battleship targets. If thats the case, how about tweaking bombs to be more inline with the new role it's getting? Instead of an expensive, slow munition with an area of effect, shift them to be more like the precision-guided bombs we have today, designed for taking out hard, armored structures. Let the Bomb Launcher be fit into the highs without using a missile bay slot, lower the cost of constructing them. Instead of a wide area dispersal weapon, have bombs wobble slowly towards their target and hit for a good deal of damage (although probably less then the current bomb is capable of for balance's sake). This way you keep the idea of a formation of bombers decloaking, homing in on a target, launching a salvo of torps to soften it, follow with a bomb to really start to crack it, then warp off as the covops cloak timer cools down and the bomb launcher reloads. Just like Torps, the bombs would be sluggish, low-range, get popped by smartbombs and deal much less damage to a smaller target. That and a smaller target can just warp off as well if they see them coming. With this you keep the role focus of hard hitting a battleship, doing enough damage to seriously effect it, and the bombers don't have to remain in the battle or take pass after pass at the target just to get mauled by drones/interceptors/sniping hacs and such. One could even mix some combinations in there, such as hitting a shield tanker with EM torps, and following up with the cap destroying bomb to make their tank cry. Or concentrate explosive on the common buffer tanker to crack it into structure. The fragility of the bomber would keep it akin to its real world counterpart, a submarine or B-2/F-117 Attacker, and pretty much die to anything, meaning picking targets carefully and setting up runs. The reload times on the covop cloak and bomb launcher mean it can't keep making passes and wipe out half a fleet on it's own.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:53:00 - [439] Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)? Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat. -- Thanks CCP for cu
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:57:00 - [440] Originally by: Armadalla Ok, so the torps are basically set in stone and the role of the Bomber is now to hit battleship targets. If thats the case, how about tweaking bombs to be more inline with the new role it's getting? Instead of an expensive, slow munition with an area of effect, shift them to be more like the precision-guided bombs we have today, designed for taking out hard, armored structures. I like this. Even if there is simply another high alpha bomb variant introduced that acts as a slow moving missile (maybe not even doing a specific damage type?) effecting one target that would indeed seem to give the SB the punch its seemingly intended role seems to dictate. I have a suspicion though that Devs may not consider the bomb launcher as the Stealth bombers prime weapon system, given that they have chosen to replace cruise missiles and given the reasoning for such appears to be that it will make SB's more effective against BS. Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.

retro mike	Posted - 2009.04.01 21:58:00 - [441] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)? Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat. Yes we can have a choic between the two. Introduce the Torp model as a new shiptype. Simple isnt it when u think 3D
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:00:00 - [442] Edited by: RedSplat on 01/04/2009 22:00:51 Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)? Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat. That could be tweaked by having separate CPU use reductions for Cruise and Torp launchers on the same SB hull; is there actually any hard cap on the number of boni a ship can have, i've never spotted such in any of the literature? Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:18:00 - [443] Originally by: retro mike Edited by: retro mike on 01/04/2009 22:05:20 Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)? Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat. Yes we can have a choice between the two. Introduce the Torp model as a new shiptype. Simple isnt it when u think 3D STEALTH PRECISION BOMBER using existing cruise setup, with explosion radius/velocity bonus STEALTH HEAVY BOMBER using proposed torpedo setup I like the sound of these, they have a nice ring to their names......... WE HAVE ENOUGH STEALTH IN GAME Even stealth transports! Better stop now and forever. -- Thanks CCP for cu
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:21:00 - [444] Originally by: RedSplat That could be tweaked by having separate CPU use reductions for Cruise and Torp launchers on the same SB hull; is there actually any hard cap on the number of boni a ship can have, i've never spotted such in any of the literature? None as you can see if you take a look at, say, titans or Moms. They are brightly paint in different bonuses. But aside from technical possibility, there's simple rule of sanity. You already have short-range dumb SB-only UNUSED weapon - bombs. FIX THEM DAMN DONT TAKE WHAT WE HAVE BUT FIX WHAT WE DONT HAVE. You want us to use Short or long range? Here you have Cruise long and bombs short. Fix bombs, or, really, allow us to fire citadel torps. -- Thanks CCP for cu
retro mike	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:23:00 - [445] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: retro mike Edited by: retro mike on 01/04/2009 22:05:20 Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Vall Kor Those are some good points. For the devs; Why can't we have a choice between the two (cruise or torp)? Told you - CPU issues. the amount of CPU that allow you to barely fit T1 torp launchers, will more than allow you to fit strong cruise missile boat. Yes we can have a choice between the two. Introduce the Torp model as a new shiptype. Simple isnt it when u think 3D STEALTH PRECISION BOMBER using existing cruise setup, with explosion radius/velocity bonus STEALTH HEAVY BOMBER using proposed torpedo setup I like the sound of these, they have a nice ring to their names......... WE HAVE ENOUGH STEALTH IN GAME Even stealth transports! Better stop now and forever. I just had to reduce your character size, it was way too big. You must be a pirate to come up with such a lame opinion btw
Vaarun Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:29:00 - [446] Originally by: Vall Kor Basically the devs are forcing a paper tank to fight one of the highest HP ships in the game and not giving us the tools to kill that target. This needs to be either a much heavier armored ship class (HACs come to mind) or use range as the tank (current SBs with a tweak or two). I don't think I've seen the problems, nor suggested fixes, with the current SB "vision" summed up so succinctly. Well done... If you want "focus" CCP, read that statement over and over. I am not as adverse to change as I am to making a ship less effective on multiple fronts than it was before the change. "To bring order to chaos, one must bring chaos to its knees." -Vaarun
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:30:00 - [447] Originally by: Tonto Auri You want us to use Short or long range? Here you have Cruise long and bombs short. Fix bombs, or, really, allow us to fire citadel torps. Thats actually my preffered soloution. However, i was examining others and offering them up for discussion. Since you mention it, Citadel Torps? Sorry, but i have this wonderfull image of a tiny Pod duct-taped to a 747 sized Citadel torp and some crazed pilot ramming it into a BS. I cant really see CCP letting Frigates fire missiles that are larger (?) than they are- and frankly why would they when they can simply introduce a new type of bomb for the bomb launcher that has the same effect? Please resize image to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal I'm in denial. Post moar kitteh.
Greg DaimYo Caldari Unglueckliche Wiesel	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:30:00 - [448] Okay, after reading the latest changes for Bombers today I decided to try them on SiSi. I gotta say, that I really suck with Steath Bombers the way they are at the moment. It is the only shiptype I regularly lose the day I assemble it. Without much of a thought I threw the following setup into the carnage, that is FD on Singularity: [Hound, SiSi] Overdrive Injector System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Catalyzed Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thrusters Warp Scrambler II Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution 'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo 'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo 'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Bane Torpedo Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot] Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I Auxiliary Thrusters I ------- I gotta say, that it is pure win. I've killed myself ten times, but the possibilities which are lying in the ship are just awesome. I am thinking of roams with 2 Falcons, 2 Arazus and 2 Dictors fitted with a cloak plus 20 Stealth Bombers and you are going to have fun times in enemy territory. Furthermore the SB is one of the few ships in its current state on SiSi, that could perform extremely well with an Afterburner. Signature-Tanking is your friend. Just wanted to add my observations. They are not completely thought through, but it's very promising. Have fun, Greg P.S. My Torpedo-Skills (Lvl 3) and supporting missile skills can be considered mediocre at best. That's why the fitting posted above fields Tech I.
Chinchek 4 wing Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:40:00 - [449] cool, but goodluck getting 20 skilled SB pilots
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2009.04.01 22:41:00 - [450] Originally by: retro mike I just had to reduce your character size, it was way too big. You must be a pirate to come up with such a lame opinion btw You didn't hit the air even. I'm pretty much civilian citizen. But, opposing to you, I can take the place of other players for a moment. -- Thanks CCP for cu



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 57 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.