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) |
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:11:00 -
[31]
Edited by: yani dumyat on 30/03/2009 15:11:27
BANGS
Why destroy a popular combat ship?
HEAD
Someone got tasked with fixing the bomber and invented a new ship instead?
ON
Your new ship has a place in new eden.
BRICK
So be nice to it and give it it's own name and hull :)
WALL
|
Winterreign
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:14:00 -
[32]
My Thoughts.
There should be no penalty for Covert Ops Recloaking. This should be removed. Instead lower the Scan rezolution a bit more on the SB and raise it's Signature radius by a bit as well.
The thought being that you can uncloak, lock and launch and then recloak. But the reduced scan rez will take you longer to lock and the higher sig radius will mean others can lock you quicker
This being that if someone manages to lock you up it prevents you from cloaking there by catch you with your pants down. I don't beleive this to be the "Winsauce" button because it can be overcome with Tactics.
And those tactics being that it pays to have other light support ships to prevent stealth bombers making attack runs. Where as multiple battleships will be suceptable to stealth bombers because they can not lock the target before it manages to recloak.
As it should be.
Apart from that i like all the changes, but unless the 30 sec recloak is removed all the changes will be for naught.
-W
|
Zantaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:26:00 -
[33]
Who are these stealth bomber pilots that are attacking battleships? Why would I bring a SB to a fight against a battleship... ~2,000 alpha strike against ten or fifteen thousand ARMOR???
This is the core of the problem. Where did Chronitis get this silly idea from?
If I'm fighting a battleship, I bring a battleship... anything but a SB would be more useful, even a frig with ecm.
I just don't understand why you're doing this. Why kick a ship when it's down????
As a Gallente pilot, having already spent way too much time training for cruise missiles, if you think I'm going to start training for torpedoes, you're sadly mistaken.
Could you please stop messing around with a ship you've obviously never flown? Could you please talk to the customer service people, who might be open to the opinions of the consumers of your game, as expressed in FOURTEEN PAGES OF BEGGING YOU NOT TO DO THIS????
Listen to the customers. Listen to the customers. Listen to the customers.
|
Winterreign
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:30:00 -
[34]
He has a point.
I like these changes but your better off just splitting it off into 2 different ships.
A. Percision Stealth Bomber B. Suppression Stealth Bomber
Or somthing of the like, you are kind of cheeseing over all those players who specificaly trained for Cruise missles
I still feel jaded over having trained Tech 2 heavy assault missles and then had my javlin missle range cut from 52km to 19km
-W
|
Nymysys
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:34:00 -
[35]
For those that are arguing against the anti-BS role, I agree with you. But CCP has apparently decided this is the role they should have. I do not think they are willing to make SB's into what they were befoe the missile changes; they no longer consider them anti-frigate/cruiser weapons. However, they risk making them worthless in the new role they have picked for them as well as the role they are moving away from (and that most SB pilots are use to). It not only has to be good at something, it has to be good enough for pilots to want to use it in the intended role.
|
Overbrain
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:34:00 -
[36]
Stealth Bombers couldnt do it with missiles now they are going to try it with TORPS ! . Its "all about torps" baby .
- I sense dark times coming for bombers , brawling a battleship with a 1600 ehp frigate...
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:40:00 -
[37]
A small, supplemental damage dealer designed to aide mobile gangs ... this seems sound. Barring the community whiplash over the paradigm shift in what a bomber should be, this a good change. I disagree that the cloaked velo bonus is necessary, though I admit I will miss it.
But such a change makes one thing abundantly clear: we need a solo bomb-deploying class that can actually do its job and live. It is time to separate the torp bomber from the bomb bomber.
Cheers for the hard work, CCP.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:57:00 -
[38]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Quote:
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Torpedo Explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 10% bonus to Torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use -100% targeting delay after decloaking
As ever, everything is subject to change and feedback is welcome on these ideas :)
Is there anyway we could have the explosion velocity bonus as a 10% per level reduction in explosion radius? This would give bombers greater efficacy against battlecruisers, and if supporting a full array of target painters, the ability to be dangerous to HAC's as well. Torps could be all well and good, but please don't make stealth bombers only effective against Battleships, it pigeonholes* the ship far too much.
Otherwise, I like these changes better than the previous incarnation, but I still think that you guys are too worried about making the ship 'winsauce'. Another word for 'winsauce' I believe would be 'good' or 'fun-to-fly'.
Please don't be so worried about making a ship slightly too powerful that you accidentally go the opposite and make it severely underpowered. Go ahead and let it be a little strong, and then if need be, tweak it back a bit after player feedback.
Other than that keep up the good work.
---
*Pigeonhole Pronunciation: \ˈpi-jən-ˌhōl\ Function: noun Date: 1577
3: a neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pigeonholes --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Oftherocks
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:01:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Oftherocks on 30/03/2009 16:01:57 Edited by: Oftherocks on 30/03/2009 16:01:14 You guys screwed the pooch big time with missiles when you did your fail speed nerf, so now you are left just grasping in the dark to find the solution to the problems you created.
Honestly, just get rid of the damn ship, it has no real purpose in this game anymore.
And while you are at it, get rid of bombs, you pre-nerfed them so hard they will never be viable because even if they were changed into a good thing, people will always just remember them as a very bad idea and never use them.
And while I am posting, the thread above this one, the one about changing ECM, just stop it. It is fine, leave it alone, no reason to break more of the games mechanics.
In conclusion, only TomB and Tuxford (and on occasion Sharkbait) should be allowed to make changes to the way the game actually works. The rest of you drones keep making pretty graphics, writing more missions, plugging more memory leaks, and fixing all game lag.
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
No, i play hello kitty online and just paid for 5 years to come here and make comments about stuff i know nothing about and Wranglers pants.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:06:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Oftherocks In conclusion, only TomB and Tuxford (and on occasion Sharkbait) should be allowed to make changes to the way the game actually works. The rest of you drones keep making pretty graphics, writing more missions, plugging more memory leaks, and fixing all game lag.
Well that's not entirely fair. Chronotis has had some great ideas in the past. I'm just sad that we haven't heard more from him on improvements to the industrial side of the game, as I remember him having a large part in that in the past.
I let out a small sigh for the poor little un-realized dream of the industrial mini-game of eve. So much potential going un-tapped. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
|
Jalum Krayal
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:08:00 -
[41]
You should leave stealth bombers as they are, and instead make T2 Destroyers that are geared to kill BSes.
|
Ayame Kei
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:08:00 -
[42]
i think a few good points have been made here.
CCP need to clearly define what role a ship is to have before designing it and releasing it in game.
CCP then need to enable it to perform its defined role.
As it stands I have to say that the proposed changes will not leave us with a ship with a defined role that it can perform, let alone perform well.
So please have a design team meeting and decide exactly what the ship is supposed to be for, then work out how to make it perform that role reasonably well, then come to the players with the details, including how it is to perform its function.
and please consider the following;-
Is it a fleet combat ship and if so in what role? Is it a small roaming gang ship and if so what role? Is it a system defence ship nad how will it perforeme this role?
Lastly what will make it worth flying in its role?
I look forward to CCP's answers on this
|
IceAero
Amarr Shadow Company
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:13:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Jalum Krayal
You should leave stealth bombers as they are, and instead make T2 Destroyers that are geared to kill BSes.
I made a huge post about this, I'll dig it up :)
|
Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:20:00 -
[44]
I for one really like the proposed changes. Look good so far. Time will tell if further tweaking will be needed.
for the tech2 dessy thing: bleh, if tech2 destroyers, make them hard nuts to crack but only dangerous to frigates. thats what they were supposed to be.
A Tech2 Destroyer with resists and HP of a Hac, and agility and speed of a battleship. with tracking like the tech1 destroyers and extended range to about 20-40 km. So that they would actually be used to fight back frigate swarms trying to scram the bigger ships.
|
Nocturnal Hunter
APOCALYPSE LEGION
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:22:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Nocturnal Hunter on 30/03/2009 16:26:39 in my opinion, bombers should do what they were made of, wich is basically big payloads with a big area of effect, then back home to reload this is why i think the stealthbombers launcher slots should be completely removed of these ships along with the turret slots and give a major boost to bombs
1) cut the built cost of bombs to 1/10 or to somehow make them viable (500k?) 2) make them have few bombs on cargo so they need to retreat 2/4 bombs (carrier or a hauler that bring bombs to a safespot on the system where bombers go pick them) 3) make them usable in low sec
other than this, give them a cov ops cloack yes, take some agility or base speed of it if u think it may overpower them, but pls make a bomber what a bomber is, not some crazy launcher with engines (wich is what it is in it's current form)
edit: make the bomb launcher don't use a missile slot btw
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:30:00 -
[46]
Ok, this is much better, but still needs some work.
Quote: 1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak
However they will have a 30 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential.
This is fair. My only concern here is getting de-cloaked by objects. With the current covops ships, you can almost immediately re-cloak as soon as you get out of range of the object, but bombers are going to be exposed for a full 30 seconds.
Would it be possible to code the delay so it is only triggered once you activate weapons? That way you're still forced to spend a full 30 seconds uncloaked if you want to engage a target, but don't run into problems moving around.
Quote: 2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes.
This allows them to inflict a high amount of alpha damage on larger targets and be serious threat to them. In gangs with other ships and available strategies will add significant damage to the fleet. They will no longer be able to fit cruise launchers as a result.
I'm still not happy with this one. There are three fundamental problems here:
1) Torps are redundant. You already have a short-range, high-damage weapon: bombs. And it's even a weapon that is most effective against battleships. If you fix bombs correctly (most importantly, reduce the absurd cost), the only reason you'd ever need to use torps on a bomber is if you refuse to remove the 0.0-only limitation.
2) Bombers are paper. Survival odds for a stealth bomber are bad enough as it is, de-cloak within 24km of anything with guns and you'll be in a pod within seconds. The only defense a stealth bomber currently has is its long range, and now you want to take that away? I don't see bombers getting an AF's resists or an interceptor's speed without becoming too powerful, so they really need to keep their range.
3) Wasted skills suck. Since stealth bombers are the only cruise missile ship (or even missile ship at all) for a lot of players, changing them to use torps means wasted SP, especially if they trained T2 cruise.
But as I said in the other thread, there is a better way of doing this:
1) Introduce a special bomber-only weapon: covert warhead launcher. You can load one of two options:
a) 5x cruise missiles.
OR
b) 1x bomb.
The launcher itself has a very high ROF, meaning if you go with cruise missiles, you will have very good dps as long as your missiles last. However, there are two penalties:
a) Small capacity. You do huge dps, but only for a very short time.
b) Long reload time. As in, a full minute or so (ideally with just the standard 10 seconds if you reload out of combat to change missile types).
Both of these ensure that the stealth bomber is a proper ambush ship: you can do devastating damage in a very short amount of time, but if you don't plan your ambush carefully you're going to find yourself with a very angry target and nothing to shoot back with.
2) Fix bombs. Make them proper short-range AOE weapons. This means the following:
a) Reduce the cost to something comparable to interdictor bubbles. High enough that buying a stack of 500 is a noticeable dent in your wallet, but low enough to use without hesitation.
b) Remove the 0.0-only limit. No more toys for just the rich alliances. Do NOT, however, change CONCORD/sec hit/sentry response, bombs are use-at-own-risk, just like smartbombs and ECM bursts.
c) Balance their damage/blast radius/etc appropriately for their new cost (remember, you can launch up to three at once).
There. Bombers are now fixed, and everyone is happy. -----------
|
Shun Makoto
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:39:00 -
[47]
I don't know what you're thinking Chronotis.
What is the Stealth Bomber's Real life counter-part? The Submarine.
What do the Subs of today do?
They breach the surface, launch ICBMs and then dive and run silent.
Uncloak | Launch Cruise Missiles | Recloak and move to another spot
THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL STEALTH BOMBER.
Stealth Bomber's already got Nerfed. DON'T NERF THEM MORE
/burns SB Changes
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:45:00 -
[48]
I'm not sure anyone wants Torps on these ships instead of cruise...not sure why CCP is pushing that idea so much.
The cov ops cloak with that penalty is pretty much a death sentence at that range, so I would say take it back out and give it the cloak speed bonus again.
My ideal SB (generic missile bonuses since I don't know which one will be used in the end):
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 10% bonus to thermal damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use 500% bonus to cloaked velocity Can Target while cloaked (allows missiles to hit after you've cloaked again)
There, now it's useful.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:46:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
4. They will still use bombs
Nothing is changing on this front for now.
Looking back, this part of the thread troubles me the most.
I wouldn't give two ****s about the primary weapon system on the bomber if bombs were useful.
Seriously, a covert-ops cloaked bomber with bombs that were worth launching would fundamentally change fleet warfare, in a good way. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
MrFahrenheit
Gallente The humble Crew Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:46:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda
Originally by: Eka Lawrencia They will also have difficulty to get into position against smaller ships
Yes, because its role is as a bomber, not a frigate killer.
Exactly, but with a 30sec recloak delay you know its inty death for us all, I mean part of the whole bomber experience is avoiding incoming intys with meters to spare.
Not to mention the time wasted training for cruise missiles, and then maybe torps for us gun skill heavy toons that only trained them for this particular ship type. Are bombers that broken they need this nerf? I say nerf because in my eyes this isnt a fix of any sort.
If you want SB's to be more bomber like, then perhaps look into enhancing actual bombs, SB's are glass cannons enough without having to resort to a slight increase in dmg in exchange for almost 0% survivability.
Just my 2 cents in a post on fixing the unbroken. [url=http://kb.eve-daisho.com/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=40133] [/url] |
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:48:00 -
[51]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Ranger 1 I really, really wanted the 1000m/s speed while cloaked.
It is possible that the torpedo explosion velocity could be exchanged for cloaked velocity bonus. Certainly not ruling such an idea out for now though we are bordering on a ship which will be too much winsauce soon. Will see how things pan out so watch this space.
As others have expressed the Stealth Bomber needs to be able to maximise its ability to manoeuvre to ensure a payload delivery.
The cov ops cloak provides the ability to manoeuvre strategically (i.e around a solar system).
A cloaked velocity bonus would allow it to manoeuvre tactically (i.e on the grid of the battle). In addition once de-cloaked the excess velocity might, in the hands of a skill full pilot, provide sufficient momentum to escape the field of battle - providing additional survivability - and thus the potential to deliver another payload (and in doing so more damage to the opposing fleet).
Survivability is important from a game play perspective, other wise SB pilots will essentially be on suicide missions - and anyone whose waited 30 minutes for a gang to form, another 30 minutes to get to the target system and then an hour waiting for the 'fight' to start definitely doesnt want to get vaporised in the first 10 seconds.
Its worth noting though, that if you apply the cov op cloak + cloaked velocity bonus (as I think you should: Id fly one instantly) you should consider this in conjunction with the proposed changes to Caldari EW ships. Their ECM 'sniping' ability would be significantly impinged by the risk of fast cloaked bombers.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:51:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 30/03/2009 14:44:04
Originally by: something somethingdark
please dont fix whats barely broken
have you flown a Stealth Bomber recently? Currently it is a joke really. No strategic value, no defined role. And regular dps ship will outperform it. A sniper AF is better. A T1 frig with tackle is better, a T1 cruiser is better. At anything the SB cna currently do.
yup i have yeah the missile nerf hit it hard but frankly instapoping frigates or shooting down intys never felt quite right
its still a lovely tactical tool and i still get kills with it
i do admit it needs a little help but not a complete and total redesign
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:52:00 -
[53]
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert
Can Target while cloaked (allows missiles to hit after you've cloaked again)
There, now it's useful.
er..and how do you kill one?
sounds overpowered to me.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
MrFahrenheit
Gallente The humble Crew Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:03:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert
Can Target while cloaked (allows missiles to hit after you've cloaked again)
There, now it's useful.
er..and how do you kill one?
sounds overpowered to me.
C.
Umm at any time during the 30 second recloaking delay? [url=http://kb.eve-daisho.com/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=40133] [/url] |
Vall Kor
Minmatar ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:04:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Vall Kor on 30/03/2009 17:05:03 Wouldn't the scorpion be a better "anti-battleship" platform than a paper-thin frigate? Unless you totally intend to allow us to fit a BS sized tank of a frig then, I'll just cross train into Calamari to do what the SB will not be able to do.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
So warp in some RR (armor) scorpions w/ Jammers and have better tank to accomplish the exact same role as the "new" lol Stealth Bomber. Hell, throw a cloak on it and call it a Stealth Platform. |
Mire Stoude
Cash Money Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:09:00 -
[56]
Awesome. I approve.
|
Thenoran
Caldari Tranquility Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:13:00 -
[57]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Continuing on from the previous thread, we would like to start fresh with feedback on the ideas below which will be put onto sisi for further playtesting and feedback in the days and weeks ahead.
We are looking into improving and focusing bombers to be more bomber like with a more focused target group and bonuses which compliment this role much better.
The role of a stealthy glass cannon is to ambush and deliver a large amount of firepower through volleys of torpedoes onto large targets. To facilitate this new role better, the bonuses and some of the attributes are being changed appropriately.
So what are we looking at changing exactly?
1. Bombers will be able to fit covert ops cloak
However they will have a 30 second cloak reactivation delay. This means they can warp in cloaked and better surprise their targets in a true ambush. However once they are committed to the fight, they will not be able to recloak quickly as a drawback so choosing the right time to strike is essential.
2. Bombers will be able to fit and use siege launchers and fire torpedoes.
This allows them to inflict a high amount of alpha damage on larger targets and be serious threat to them. In gangs with other ships and available strategies will add significant damage to the fleet. They will no longer be able to fit cruise launchers as a result.
3. Bombers will gain bonuses to torpedoes
Each racial bomber will gain a damage bonus to their racial damage torpedoes (EM = amarr, Explosive = minmatar, Kinetic = caldari, thermal = gallente) and a torpedo explosion velocity bonus so they can better hit large targets which are moving in addition to a torpedo velocity bonus increasing the range and speed of the attack.
4. They will still use bombs
Nothing is changing on this front for now.
So an example Nemesis bonus description will be like this:
Quote:
Gallente Frigate Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Torpedo Explosion velocity per level 10% bonus to Torpedo velocity per level
Covert Ops Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 10% bonus to Torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus: -99.5% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs -99% reduction in Bomb Launcher CPU use -100% targeting delay after decloaking
As ever, everything is subject to change and feedback is welcome on these ideas :)
Not wanting to sound disrespectful here, but have you read all 14 pages of the Stealth Bomber thread? Everyone in there is against Torpedoes and close range, why are you pressing on the matter when the players who are going to use the new Stealth Bomber all don't agree with the change?
In addition, a 30 second reactivation delay when you are 30km away from your target means only one thing: Death.
Please, please, p-l-e-a-s-e try to understand a Stealth Bomber under 50km is a dead Stealth Bomber. They have no tank, they have no means of cloaking when locked (and with your 30 second delay they'd be screwed even more).
The only way to make Stealth Bombers viable at close range is if they are not focused on fighting purely Battleships, have some small amount of tank in case of drones and can cloak while locked for something like 10 seconds after decloaking. Sensor damps won't help against multiple targets.
Torpedoes.at.close.range.will.not.work. Regardless of how much you want it to.
Also, if you intend to ignore the entire Stealth Bomber population by still giving Siege Launchers and throwing away Cruise Launchers, please knock it off with these threads giving false hope of us being really listened too.
We don't want a close range, anti-BS, torpedo only Stealth Bomber, try to get that in your head please.
Again, no disrespect meant, but nearly every single piece of feedback in the previous thread has been ignored. ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:16:00 -
[58]
Originally by: MrFahrenheit
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert
Can Target while cloaked (allows missiles to hit after you've cloaked again)
There, now it's useful.
er..and how do you kill one?
sounds overpowered to me.
C.
Umm at any time during the 30 second recloaking delay?
Not really sensible in large fleet fights with possibly hundreds of targets on overview, plus associated lag - and if that's not an issue then the whole concept falls pretty flat anyway (as you'll lock the SB and its all rather a moot point).
It would just boil down to latency issues in the end.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:19:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Cailais on 30/03/2009 17:21:48 double post. silly forums
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Hakaryu Lionheart
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:28:00 -
[60]
This idea sucks bad - unless the SB can fit EITHER torps or cruises - then why not?
I would NEVER take my SB against anything larger than a cruiser - so the larger ships idea is not appropriate imo.
If it moves to only Torps - I will no longer be flying mine and that will SUCK!
|
|
|
|
|
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 |