EVE Search - Balancing - Identifying problems

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balancing - Identifying problems

» 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 .. 47 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.05.22 21:31:00 - [901] Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 22/05/2009 21:31:36 1. Carriers. The Thanatos and Nidhoggur need their racial bonuses boosted. On non-capital ships, resist bonuses are treated as being 'of higher quality' than other bonuses (i.e. tier 3 battleships get either a +5% resist bonus or level but a +7.5% repper/booster amount per level). Every ship except the Thanatos that gets a drone damage bonus gets +10% (or more) to drone damage and hitpoints. The Nidhoggur needs at least a +7.5% per level bonus to remote capital repper/booster amount. At the very least, the Thanatos needs +10% damage per level to fighters. +10% to fighter HP and/or applying the bonuses to all drones wouldn't be unreasonable. 2. HACs pt.1 Every HAC except the Zealot has at least one 'utility high slot'. While these slots provide some degree of flexibility, the Zealot has a huge advantage in terms of fitting tank and/or gank because of its slot layout. This applies to AFs to a lesser extent but they are still lacking their 4th bonus are are already due for balancing so I'm leaving them off of my list. Either the Zealot needs to have a low slot moved up to a high slot, or every other HAC needs to be evaluated for having a 'utility high slot' moved down to either a low or a mid. 2. HACs pt.2 The Eagle lacks sufficient powergrid to mount a basic sniper fit without a fitting mod. There are only two HACs that cannot fit a full rack of largest-caliber guns, a MWD, and basic sniper kit (damage mods, sensor boosters, etc.) without a using a fitting module: the Eagle and the Vagabond. The Vagabond is pretty much designed to be a fast, short-range ship that uses autocannons so this is not a terrible shortcoming, but the Eagle is designed specifically as a fleet sniper so this is a serious limitation. The Eagle needs to have about as much powergrid as the Deimos (i.e. 100-125 more base powergrid) in order to effectively compete with other sniper HACs. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Vyllana	Posted - 2009.05.22 22:22:00 - [902] Rockets are severely broken. They need a boost to explosion velocity and base damage.
Vyllana	Posted - 2009.05.22 22:42:00 - [903] Active tanking needs to be made more appealing in more situations, compared to buffer tanking, which is currently dominant in most types of PvP. Maybe increase the fitting reqs on oversized armor plates / shield extenders? Currently many cruisers/BCs can fit (sometimes several) 1600mm plates / large shield extenders without sacrificing much, achieving huge amounts of HP for their ship type. These are the largest size modules and thus should only really be fitting on battleships, and even then, just 1 or at most 2, not 3 or 4 like we currently see with triple 1600mm plated battleship setups. At the same time, look into the cap use of active tanking modules. Most ships have trouble running appropriate sized armor reps / shield boosters for decent lengths of time unless using multiple cap mods or cap boosters. As a standard, I think a battleship should, in general, have enough cap to permarun 1 large armor rep / large shield booster + weapons without running out of cap. Of course, extra cap would still be needed for the dual repper / XL booster setups, or for running a propulsion mod or other cap-using modules. Similarly, cruiser/BC sized ships should have the cap to run a medium armor rep or medium shield booster + weapons, and frigates should have the cap to run a small armor rep or small shield booster. This would also make these setups slightly less vulnerable to cap warfare, which is one of their big downfalls compared to buffer tanks.
Nessaji Caldari Rosa Alba Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.23 13:03:00 - [904] 1. Nighthawk needs more powergrid. Try fitting it with similar setup as other commandships, mwd, shortrange guns/missiles and you see the problem. 2. Eagle got the 5th turret to bring it inline with other hacs, however it didnt get the powergrid to fit the turret+mwd, and thus you need to downgrade the turrets or use fitting mods instead of magstabs which means the extra turret is useless. 3. Raptor needs more powergrid. It can barely fit 75mm rails and mwd. Up the grid so that raptor can fit 125mm turrets, mwd, and standard missile launcher+tackle and speedmods without fitting mods. Somehow when raptor got the 3rd turret, you developers reduced the pg instead of raising it, which it would have needed to use the 3rd turret. ______________________________________ "Originally by: Tuxford It was a dirty hack to be honest but we couldn't find anyway around it. I hope we never have to do it again."
AnzacPaul	Posted - 2009.05.24 07:47:00 - [905] seems to be the same 3 or 4 issues over and over in this thread that are getting ignored 1)Rockets, does it need to be said again that they do no dps, have crap explosion velocity and a very small clip size for a quick fire weapon? 2) T2 Ammo Faction ammo is better in 95% of cases, t2 ammo has far too many drawbacks to be useful. 3) Assault Frigs, particularly hawk and retribution, absoloute fail ships. Need a 4th bonus all round. 4)Powergrid on a number of ships ie Nighthawk and Eagle.
Thenoran Caldari Tranquility Industries	Posted - 2009.05.24 10:26:00 - [906] Edited by: Thenoran on 24/05/2009 10:30:37 Rockets Seriously, Light Missiles are better in every way. Terrible explosion velocity for something so small (it should do full damage to frigates), terrible damage and even crappier ammo capacity. Hawk Kestrel does more damage and is far cheaper. The shield boosting bonus is a waste because no frigate has any realistic cap for it. Also, shield resist bonus will always be much much better, as they benefit both active and buffer tanks. 1 mid-slot ships Seriously, what is the point of these ships? Giving them only one mid-slot leaves them purely as gang DPS or a salvager. Retribution and Coercer (and any other 1 mid-slot) ship should have a low-slot or high-slot traded for a mid-slot. The Retri has a fifth high-slot but only four turret hardpoints, so use that fifth high-slot for a second mid-slot. Assault Frigate 4th Bonus The Assault Frigates, completely breaking T2 Ship Standards, lack a fourth ship bonus (the second bonus from its T1 base hull). They should be given a new bonus so they are in line with other T2 ships. Also note this is one of the reasons why the Hawk is so crappy. T2 Ammunition Only the long-range ammo has any useful purpose, whereas the high-damage ammunition is complete crap when faced with Faction ammo which you can get easily from LP stores or the market. In addition, they add nothing useful, all they do is a tiny sliver of additional damage than the faction variant, but have terrible terrible penalties. Take a look at Quake L ammo penalties: 12% worse capacitor recharge time per turret using the ammo (worst.penalty.ever) -75% range, 25% worse than the highest damage ammo -10% velocity per turret using the ammo -25% tracking for something that is supposed to be up close Put that together and you get Fail L ammunition. Tracking should be given a bonus, not a penalty as it's purely close range ammo. Capacitor should never be affected by ammo other than how much cap they consume per shot, if any. For projectile turrets I'm sure you can think of something to function similar to increased cap usage for a shot by hybrids or lasers. Range should be the same as the highest damage, it can only be less if the damage is really THAT high. Killing your velocity means you can't stay with your target to use that fancy ammo. On top of all this, the faction variant of EMP L does essentialy the same amount of damage with no penalties at all. The only practical penalties are: Range & Falloff (to a degree, no point using higher damage ammo if you lose too much damage due to range) Increased energy consumption for the shot itself (no cap recharge penalties!) Ammo being large itself (ammo capacity) Potentially (for Projectiles), instead of having increase cap consumption (as they use no cap) you could spread out the damage equally over their used damage types. This removes any specific strong point against a certain damage type while still doing high damage. Potential bonuses besides damage: Significantly reduced cap consumption Greatly improved tracking Ammo itself being smaller, allowing for maybe 100+ shots to be stored Hitting one damage type more than others (could be a penalty though) Not having penalties like -50% range while keeping high damage In addition, it might be very helpful if new T2 ammunition variants were created. Their purpose would be to hit other damage types than they normally would. You already got an example of this in the EVE Database, namely Desolation L, T2 version of Blaster ammo hitting EM rather than Kinetic. For those you could institute different penalties (maybe damage or something). ------------------------ Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
Morikai Acler Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.25 05:44:00 - [907] 1.) Sovereignty and it's effects on systems in 0.0 regions. I've been playing since early 04 on this character. I've been in 0.0 space 80% of that time. Before the current sov system came into the game, the only effect True Sec rating had on a system was contents of the asteroid belts in the system. Since the current Sov System has come into play, now the only places you can find decent ratting in 0.0 is true sec -0.75 or lower, thus causing much over crowding in said system. Making 0.0 less enticing. cosmic sigs and anomalies have alleviated this some. But as it is now, it's almost impossible to get an officer spawn outside of npc 0.0. 2.) Missiles, the last few nerfs have takin things just a bit too far on them. The explosion velocity mechanic has seriously hurt them, at least at their current states. In pve I can use a gun boat, and instant pop frigates without much hassle. Now if I'm flying a missile boat, I have to either use drones or take more ammo than should be reasonable to kill them. In PVP they're near useless due to speed tanking, as well as the long range variants taking far too long to reach targets. So velocity/flight time on the long range variants needs to be looked at. 3.) Command ships, certain ones need to be looked at, such as the nighthawk for their usefulness.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Star's Dust Industrie	Posted - 2009.05.25 08:44:00 - [908] 1/ 0.0 access for carebears/small alliances 2/ artillery 3/ after 4 or 5 speed nerf, matar's speed isn't an asset anymore Fetchez la vache ! moar(tm) < soon(tm) :(
Mafaka Amarr The 5th Freedom Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.05.26 07:31:00 - [909] Edited by: Mafaka on 26/05/2009 07:35:23 Edited by: Mafaka on 26/05/2009 07:32:24 1) drone recall button for lost drones if u get disconnected , very needed for carrier pilot and other drone boats. 2) sov system need to change for good , pos spam and rewards for individuals in 00 are must be changed. Ratting is boring all the time , Complexes are not everywhere , wormholes are too unstable and risk does not justifyes the reward in most of the cases from the point of view of occasional player. ( least u ccp can do is to put lvl 5 agent in every outpost super hard quality so we can use caps time to time without going to low sec - we already in 00 - it sounds like care bear talk - but boy sometimes there is just nothing else to do in 00 when everything cleared and killed ) 3)Space is empty - there are only few objects of interest - gates, stations, POSs, belts , exploration sites. - nothing else ! why not add a new player own structure that can blown up and built and be useful somehow? whats up with pvp being only at POS ? or better at the gates? ( gate camps really outdated way of getting people into combat - seriously, why not add some different objective or give this some feeling of strategy. cloaking + local + black ops that cant warp but can jump to cyno jammed systems but cant do ** there anyway without huge support - is a perfect example of Fail**. ( p.s. - everyone can see u in local anyway - what the point in covert ops cyno generator? seriosly - as long as 1 red in a system - everyone already docked up and warped away, what would u do? )
BhallSpawn	Posted - 2009.05.26 10:20:00 - [910] make missiles viable for pvp that is all

Rye Contini Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.26 12:43:00 - [911] 1) T2 ammo (hail,quake,gleem,conflag,void etc) hard to think of a time you would ever use it over faction. replace with short range, high tracking, low damage alternative? 2) Split weapon systems ships, not actually "versatile" just harder to train for :) perhaps make a 4/4 ships 5/5 (or even 4/5 if hardpoints are an issue) 3) matari recons, web nerf now means that 2x webs are mandatory for holding targets, perhaps drop TP bonus on rapier and give web strength bonus (nothing too major).
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.27 09:34:00 - [912] did this die? 60D GTC - shattared link
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.27 18:12:00 - [913] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl did this die? NEVER SURRENDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
ArchBishop Stealth	Posted - 2009.05.27 22:11:00 - [914] I agree with many of the previous posts, particularly the following: 1. 0.0 rewards vs lvl 4 mission running. More importantly belt NPCs and Complexes. Belt NPCs need to have their bounties increased so they are not marginally higher then Lvl 4 mission NPCs. As for complexes, the spawn frequency and total number needs to be increased overall. 2. Small Alliances in 0.0. Agreed that SOV needs to be looked at. Currently small alliances/ corps really have no footholds into 0.0 space unless they become a larger alliance's lackey (which from experience doesn't truly benefit the smaller corp) 3. T2 ammo. Pretty much useless IMO compared to Faction ammo. T2 ammo needs to have a benefit that Faction does not. Either decrease the penalties on T2 to make it more acceptable, or create a different penatly on Faction so that using faction ammo presents a different situation.
Veebora Caldari	Posted - 2009.05.28 00:24:00 - [915] Originally by: ArchBishop Stealth ... 3. ... penatly on Faction so that using faction ammo presents a different situation. In this case we'll also stop using Faction ammo and start using just T1 ammo. What does it help?
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.28 21:11:00 - [916] Heelllloooooooooooooo... /echo /echo /echo :( -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.28 21:42:00 - [917] Edited by: Alxea on 28/05/2009 21:44:50 Originally by: Merroki Originally by: Originally by: Alxea I don't even need half the shield skills to out class armor. This should be looked at. Somethings wrong when I can get a 800 DPS tank with half sheild skills on a HAC and only 700 DPS tank on a HAC with armor nearly maxed. If you mean 800 DPS passive tanked, don't forget to take into account that 800 DPS only happens at roughly 1/3 shield, Originally by: This is not correct. http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Alxea&id=3936315&page=1&filter=losses#mail 2008.09.29 10:50:00 Victim: Alxea Corp: U-208 Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Destroyed: Ishtar System: FD-MLJ Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 168924 Involved parties: Name: switchkiller Security: 2.9 Corp: Virtual Warriors Alliance: Solidus Alliance Faction: NONE Ship: Paladin Weapon: Mega Pulse Laser II Damage Done: 107888 Name: BAINY (laid the final blow) Security: 5.0 Corp: Wired Noodle Enterprises Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Chimera Weapon: Templar Damage Done: 61036 Destroyed items: Depleted Uranium M, Qty: 65 Shield Power Relay II, Qty: 2 Large Shield Extender II, Qty: 3 220mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I 425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I 'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement Core Defence Field Purger I, Qty: 2 Nanite Repair Paste, Qty: 1200 (Cargo) Dropped items: Depleted Uranium M, Qty: 132 Shield Power Relay II, Qty: 3 Large Shield Extender II 425mm Medium 'Scout' Autocannon I Depleted Uranium M, Qty: 2600 (Cargo) Hammerhead II, Qty: 5 (Drone Bay) Ogre I, Qty: 6 (Drone Bay) http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Alxea&id=3774931&page=1&filter=losses#mail 2008.08.23 13:55:00 Victim: Alxea Corp: Placidity Inc. Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Destroyed: Ishtar System: FD-MLJ Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 75402 Involved parties: Name: Wild Rho Security: 2.4 Corp: Silent Core Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Purifier Weapon: Electron Bomb Damage Done: 5330 Name: GRUNT 1 Security: 5.0 Corp: Freelancer Union Alliance: Unaffiliated Faction: NONE Ship: Abaddon Weapon: Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I Damage Done: 557 Name: Azazul Security: 2.7 Corp: Onorata Societa Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Vagabond Weapon: 425mm AutoCannon II Damage Done: 22842 Name: Surround Security: 5.0 Corp: Deutsche Minen und Werke Alliance: Guardian Federation Faction: NONE Ship: Onyx Weapon: Heavy Missile Launcher II Damage Done: 12403 Name: morthala (laid the final blow) Security: 1.6 Corp: Hive Bound Technologies Alliance: NONE Faction: Minmatar Republic Ship: Raven Weapon: Inferno Torpedo Damage Done: 5537 Name: Aeyar Security: 4.7 Corp: Deep Core Mining Inc. Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Absolution Weapon: Absolution Damage Done: 10972 Name: Lord MariuzZ Security: -2.9 Corp: Jagdkommando Alliance: RAZOR Alliance Faction: NONE Ship: Deimos Weapon: Deimos Damage Done: 2289 Name: Skull Spain Security: 2.4 Corp: Dilmun GmbH Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Hyperion Weapon: Hyperion Damage Done: 11095 Name: Nagel far Security: 2.4 Corp: Space Cavalry 7th Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Ship: Typhoon Weapon: 'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher Damage Done: 4377 Name: BH Carteman Security: 10.0 Corp: All your base ar3 belong to us Alliance: NONE Faction: Amarr Empire Ship: Kronos Weapon: Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Damage Done: 0 Destroyed items: Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II Large Shield Extender II, Qty: 2 Co-Processor II Modal Electron Particle Accelerator I, Qty: 2 Small Nosferatu II Core Defence Field Extender I, Qty: 2 Antimatter Charge M, Qty: 344 (Cargo) Dropped items: Antimatter Charge M, Qty: 354 Power Diagnostic System II, Qty: 2 Large Shield Extender II, Qty: 3 Modal Electron Particle Accelerator I Small Energy Neutralizer II Ogre I, Qty: 3 (Drone Bay) Somebody put these lovely's on my kill board out of humor. You know how overpowered a shield tank is? I can't tank 1/10th of what I did with armor and that was ages ago. Your wrong...
Alxea	Posted - 2009.05.28 22:10:00 - [918] Edited by: Alxea on 28/05/2009 22:14:18 Edited by: Alxea on 28/05/2009 22:11:59 Continued... PS: Those fights lasted a long time. And at that time I was a noob at it almost a year ago. I just found a really crazy setup that works well at tanking damage. Its nice to have a mission boat that can tank every level 4 mission I came accross so far. Hmm 10.0 standing with a NPC corp, looks like my ishtar has done some good work. 8 faction standing... and it would be one hell of a fleet boat for extra firepower at those gate camps. Since I can take directed fire for some time. You know how slow drakes go down... its like that. Only smaller sig radius = less damage. And if I orbit a can thats like 300+ DPS tank. It litterally took minates to kill the ishtar. And in my older deaths it takes 10 or 20 secs for the armor to fail. Look at my other ishtar deaths. See how I only tank 10,000hp and 15,000hp with armor vs 100,000hp damage done agenst a deimos that was doing about 800 DPS to me and I had shields. Its really funny how I almost beat a 800 DPS deimos if he didn't take out all my drones he would have been dead. Back then that was about a year ago so just think about that. What I can do now with nearly maxed skills. http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Alxea&id=3569503&page=3&filter=losses#mail 2008.06.28 04:28:00 Victim: Alxea Corp: Serenity Inc Alliance: NONE Faction: NONE Destroyed: Ishtar System: FD-MLJ Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 106305 Involved parties: Name: Delanhunt (laid the final blow) Security: 3.3 Corp: Vanguard Frontiers Alliance: Imperial Republic Of the North Faction: NONE Ship: Deimos Weapon: Heavy Electron Blaster II Damage Done: 106305 Destroyed items: Shield Power Relay II Light Neutron Blaster II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, Qty: 2 Void S, Qty: 56 Small Energy Neutralizer II Medium Diminishing Power System Drain I Core Defence Field Purger I, Qty: 2 Dropped items: Shield Power Relay II, Qty: 4 Magnetic Scattering Amplifier I Light Neutron Blaster II, Qty: 2 Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, Qty: 2 Void S, Qty: 5 Void S, Qty: 1751 (Cargo) Null S, Qty: 2976 (Cargo)
Cameron Freerunner	Posted - 2009.05.29 19:09:00 - [919] Originally by: CCP Nozh Please note this is not a discussion thread. I'm still pretty new to eveything. Forgive my simplistic approach. 1. Minmatar ships need some love. We have to train twice as hard for second best. 2. Minmatar ships need some love. 3. Minmatar ships need some love.
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.05.30 11:26:00 - [920] So are we still doing this? Is there some kind of lunch or something i missed? Nozh on vacation in the Bahamas for a couple months? ---------- Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother*****r

To mare	Posted - 2009.05.31 14:22:00 - [921] Originally by: Cameron Freerunner Originally by: CCP Nozh Please note this is not a discussion thread. I'm still pretty new to eveything. Forgive my simplistic approach. 1. Minmatar ships need some love. We have to train twice as hard for second best. 2. Minmatar ships need some love. 3. Minmatar ships need some love. you forgot that minmatar weapons need more love than minmatar ships.
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.06.01 12:30:00 - [922] So, whats the next issue to be cherry picked as a key issue of balance by the Devs? Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.06.01 15:27:00 - [923] If this gets unstickied without even a cursory look at Minmatar weapons/ships and blasters, I'm going to be very upset. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
isdisco3 Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.06.02 00:39:00 - [924] a dev reply stating what the 31 pages of player feedback compiled will result in would be nice.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2009.06.02 01:02:00 - [925] whats going on :/ I would love to knoww hat ccps 350 plus staff is working on :/ Not to say your not working, just more of, I want to know whats going on, and Whatn we should expect. A nice "YOu should expect 3 months of less news while we work like crazy" would be nice. The fact that this thread hasn't been updated and now moved worries me :/ but more so it makes me wonder what nozh has been up to. I feel like everyday that poasses the devs get things done. I just wish we could know what that stuff is.
Cutty Carebear	Posted - 2009.06.02 01:29:00 - [926] 1/ Fix supercaps size 2/ Fix supercaps survivability 3/ Fix supercaps roles.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.06.02 01:42:00 - [927] Um, moving this to features/ideas is not going to make it go away. You promised us a thread with results based on what the player base wanted fixed... these threads have not materialized. In fact, you seemed to start your way at the bottom and work your way up cherry picking random ideas. This is very disappointing. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.06.02 04:23:00 - [928] Originally by: Liang Nuren Um, moving this to features/ideas is not going to make it go away. You promised us a thread with results based on what the player base wanted fixed... these threads have not materialized. In fact, you seemed to start your way at the bottom and work your way up cherry picking random ideas. This is very disappointing. -Liang Maybe they moved it to the appropriate place in their minds. If they wanted it to "go-away", they would have deleted it. Quit this BS of yours Liang or quit Eve in protest. Simple as that. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Trellish The Perfect Storm Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.06.02 06:01:00 - [929] Edited by: Trellish on 02/06/2009 06:01:57 I can sign on to some of the comments in this forum. Really CCP, there should never be less than 2 slots at any level... low, mid, high. Feel free to play with what can go there by means of turrents, but the base criteria for ALL ships should be at least 2 of each slot. edit... also signing onto the boost rockets comments. ><
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.06.02 07:21:00 - [930] so "lets make topic for balancing, take 2 easy to fix ones and forget about it, they will be happy" 60D GTC - shattared link



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: 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.