| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mr Intel
   |
Posted - 2009.07.09 01:36:00 -
[61]
Sadly, i dont support the new rigs.
Why? because the current rig system is perfectly fine, but needs some balances. The idea is that rigs are on option, and that the risk of losing them should prevent them from bieng standard on EVERY ship, like faction/deadspace/officer mods. Much as T2 ships were once rare and extremely expensive, they now are essentially required to compete in the current PvP world because they have been made so widely available. This is what would happen to rigs, the same standard fits over and over using the same rigs with essentially no loss because of T1 insurance
Really only balancing is needed. Such changes like useless rigs having their bonuses re-assigned to more practical ones, rigs that cost 20-25+ mil have their manufacturing costs lowered (trimarks and cargo opts come to mind), hole filling resist rigs such as EM shield hardening rigs costing more than 4 mil
Example: why pay 20 mil for a buzzard when you could fit your scanners and rigs on a heron for 300K? because the buzzard protects the 35 mil in rigs you have on it with a cloak, the heron has no cloak and is easy to find and kill.
|
steave435
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 12:42:00 -
[62]
 Quote:
Example: why pay 20 mil for a buzzard when you could fit your scanners and rigs on a heron for 300K? because the buzzard protects the 35 mil in rigs you have on it with a cloak, the heron has no cloak and is easy to find and kill.
No, because the buzzard can move around without telling hostiles that it's there, and assuming you have cov ops skill at more then level 2, a rigged buzzard has higher strength then a rigged heron.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Infusion.
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 14:06:00 -
[63]
Not supported.
CCP are doing the right thing here to increase diversity - OP, please consider the following statement: The number of fitting combinations rises exponentially with the number of slots so it is a basic mathematical fact that increasing the number of used slots increases diversity.
Your logic seems to have mashed ship diversity and isk vs reward into the same paragraph because you've got stuck on the original concept rather than seeing that we are moving forward from there:
Originally by: Yaay
When rigs were first introduced into this game, the idea was "would you be willing to pay for the extra ump?".
There are many ways 'to pay for the extra ump' in the game already and by denying rigs to T1 frigates and more casual players you are harming the diversity of the game.
|
Yahrr
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 15:43:00 -
[64]
Originally by: yani dumyat
CCP are doing the right thing here to increase diversity - OP, please consider the following statement: The number of fitting combinations rises exponentially with the number of slots so it is a basic mathematical fact that increasing the number of used slots increases diversity.
Besides that, rigs have drawbacks. Combined with the drawbacks of some modules it would make the ships way more diverse. An armor tanker will be slow as hell, a speed tanker will have the EHP of a wet paper bag, etc.
What I don't get in the whole rig story is why T1 ships get 3 rigs, T2 get 2 rigs and T3 get 3 rigs... How about T1 with 1 rig, T2 with 2 rigs and T3 with 3 rigs? It would make the difference bigger and that would cause more people to go out roaming in an expensive pwn-boat instead of their cheap throw-away ship.
|
Master Chaz
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 18:30:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Ephemeron
I support the general idea that pvp ships should be more expensive to lose. I don't like how easy money making has become in this game, and how CCP seem to be interested in making it cheaper and more meaningless
because that"s what the people are screaming for.
remember 3 years ago when you had to work for things.....
today people dont want to work for things....
can you say.....WOW
i do agree with most of op points tho
|
hired goon
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:46:00 -
[66]
g
-omg-
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:55:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Yahrr
Originally by: yani dumyat
CCP are doing the right thing here to increase diversity - OP, please consider the following statement: The number of fitting combinations rises exponentially with the number of slots so it is a basic mathematical fact that increasing the number of used slots increases diversity.
Besides that, rigs have drawbacks. Combined with the drawbacks of some modules it would make the ships way more diverse. An armor tanker will be slow as hell, a speed tanker will have the EHP of a wet paper bag, etc.
What I don't get in the whole rig story is why T1 ships get 3 rigs, T2 get 2 rigs and T3 get 3 rigs... How about T1 with 1 rig, T2 with 2 rigs and T3 with 3 rigs? It would make the difference bigger and that would cause more people to go out roaming in an expensive pwn-boat instead of their cheap throw-away ship.
actually i would like thow-away ships to stay valuable, as that's about the only way new pilots get in pvp.
Do small rigs make sence? Yes
Does it make sence that they are cheaper? Yes
Does it increase diversity? Yes
Does it add more content? Yes
Does it make game more interesting? Yes
Does it make life easier for me? Yes
Will small rigs alow me to rig my destroyer and make it a badass ship and go shoot crap and get it blown up and have fun? Yes
IS this topick trying to take away all of the above from me? Yes
What are the benefits of the stuff author offers, what is the alternative? ....
Is the tpick pure whine and trling? ....
Conclusion: No support.
Use your brain peoples! I feel that currently ai is often smarter then some people when i read topicks like this.
Fix Destroyers |
Karad Forsky
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 23:21:00 -
[68]
It's not CCP introducing smaller rigs that will cause more people to adopt "cookie-cutter setups." It's those setups working. People already fit and fly ships with cookie-cutter setups today, because someone else did the math for them, and it turned out some combination of modules did better in the majority of situations than another one. It is inevitable that someone, somewhere will do that math, as it is that people will pick up on it and copy successful fits. It's just simpler to do this today than it was three years ago, because of EFT, Battleclinic etc.
I agree that smaller rigs should provide a slightly smaller bonus though, it makes sense. In fact, I hope CCP will review rigs in general and make sure that small rigs, for instance, have bonuses which are meaningful for frigates to have. But suggesting that adding other rig sizes "dumbs down" EVE PvP is ridiculous. What is does is give small ship pilots more options.
|
Tortugan
Internal Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 00:25:00 -
[69]
Why not just make Tech 1 rigs a bit cheaper, and Tech 2 rigs a bit over what T1 are now? Say the average T1 rig was 4m- I'd almost definitely be rigging my T1 cruisers, and if I felt the need to PVP in a T1 frig, I'd be tempted to rig it as well. Then just make T2 rigs reasonably priced- maybe 25-40m so bigger ships will make the extra investment. Rigging should always be a choice- it shouldn't be a necessity.
----
Need Mercenaries? Contact me in-game to hire Internal Anarchy.
Killboard |
Trinity Nova
Amarr
Unaccompanied Souls
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:30:00 -
[70]
Negative do not support.
Should die in committee.
CCP: We really need a thumbs down option.
Thumbs down on this issue.
Solo Corp: Unaccompanied Souls |
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 08:58:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Tortugan
Why not just make Tech 1 rigs a bit cheaper, and Tech 2 rigs a bit over what T1 are now? Say the average T1 rig was 4m- I'd almost definitely be rigging my T1 cruisers, and if I felt the need to PVP in a T1 frig, I'd be tempted to rig it as well. Then just make T2 rigs reasonably priced- maybe 25-40m so bigger ships will make the extra investment. Rigging should always be a choice- it shouldn't be a necessity.
I like what CCP is doing with this, it keeps the cost of the rigs in proportion with the cost of the ship. And that last part, with this rigs will not be more of a necessity than a regular module. I don't see people complain having to fit modules, they do complain if one module becomes mandatory, that is not the issue here. All I see is more options made more available, it just might make a Destroyer slightly useful outside of salvaging even (while I doubt it, I'll at least try it).
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 14:29:00 -
[72]
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 14:03:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Dav Varan
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
Faction gear is too expensive, especially deadspace. The "bump everything 5 meta levels" patch is going to be awesome.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr
Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 15:20:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Dav Varan
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
Faction gear is too expensive, especially deadspace. The "bump everything 5 meta levels" patch is going to be awesome.
Hint: This is more along the lines of keeping deadspace modules at the exact same price but having varying sizes, with larger sizes tending to cost more.
... Oh wait..
*Looks at deadspace frigate MWD. Looks at deadspace cruiser MWD.*
It's already implemented!
1mn microwarpdrives are turning EVE into WoW since frigate pilots pay less to fit deadspace MWD than cruiser and battleship pilots |
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 17:38:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Space Pinata
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Dav Varan
Rigs are too expensive.
Esp T2.
Patch will be gooood.
Not supported.
Faction gear is too expensive, especially deadspace. The "bump everything 5 meta levels" patch is going to be awesome.
Hint: This is more along the lines of keeping deadspace modules at the exact same price but having varying sizes, with larger sizes tending to cost more.
... Oh wait..
*Looks at deadspace frigate MWD. Looks at deadspace cruiser MWD.*
It's already implemented!
1mn microwarpdrives are turning EVE into WoW since frigate pilots pay less to fit deadspace MWD than cruiser and battleship pilots
That actually has a lot more to do with demand. CCP is bypassing demand by affecting build cost with rigs. I mean, say small rigs were 10x more popular after patch. If they're implemented at 200k build cost, they're only going to cost 2 mil.
By comparison, if CCP were to half the about of small Gisti Shield boosters dropped, they're price would go through the roof. And since they already run at 700 mil a pop, That's significant. BTW, small gisti boosters are already in heavy demand which is why their cost is so much greater than most small faction loot.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 21:16:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Space Pinata
Hint: This is more along the lines of keeping deadspace modules at the exact same price but having varying sizes, with larger sizes tending to cost more.
... Oh wait..
*Looks at deadspace frigate MWD. Looks at deadspace cruiser MWD.*
It's already implemented!
1mn microwarpdrives are turning EVE into WoW since frigate pilots pay less to fit deadspace MWD than cruiser and battleship pilots
I was referring to the "Esp T2" bit - I can sort of see the way they did sized rigs(disagree with it, but understand it), but the move to make T2 rigs cheaper is just fundamentally dumb IMO. T2 rigs are the equivalent of deadspace gear - they're supposed to be luxury goods that are only really cost-effective choices on mission ships and supercaps. Making them cheaper just defeats the purpose.
|
Arcane Azmadi
Caldari
First Flying Wing Inc
Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 22:03:00 -
[77]
Not supported.
You seem to be completely missing the point- you're right that rigs are supposed to allow you to add extra power to a ship in exchange for an additional investment. Perfectly correct. But why the hell should rigs cost the same across all ship sizes? Only a twit with more money than sense (or someone entering a restricted tournament like the Alliance Tournaments) would rig any T1 ship smaller than a battlecruiser because a single rig would cost several times the value of the damned hull! That's just silly. Yes, I admit the new price scaling is a bit surprising, but to my mind rigs have always been badly overpriced anyway. And from a purely fluff/common sense perspective it's frankly ridiculous that rigs cost the same for all ship sizes- why would a kit designed to modify your ship's entire hull cost the same regardless of whether it's put on a t1 frigate or a Titan?
|
fuze
Gallente
Chosen Path
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 23:01:00 -
[78]
Not supported.
On the whole PvP gains from it and if those oldies wanna play with expensive gear there is plenty of that left.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 00:42:00 -
[79]
Not supported.
|
Emperor Cheney
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 02:43:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 12/07/2009 02:43:03
Do not support this ridiculous whine. "I might not be able to feel extra-special for spending 200 mil on a frigate anymore. Here are fifteen (15!) paragraphs about why that is horrible!" Oh, also there is the danger of "cookie cutter setups." That's pretty amazing.
|
Cpt Gobla
The Dark Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 11:44:00 -
[81]
Totally disagree.
For a few year old vets with 2 accounts both having marauders grinding lvl 4 missions it might be a matter of: Should I spend 45mill extra on rigs or not?
For however another rather large portion of the player base. The more casually orientated crowd. The question is instead: Should I spend 45mill... ow wait, don't actually have that much money to waste. nvm.
For us the current rigging system does not give options. In fact it takes about every single choice I have away. Because I can't use CCC rigs I have to fill my med slots with cap recharges to become cap-stable. Because I can't use damage rigs I have to fill my low slots with heat sinks or gyrostabs to deal ganky damage.
I would love access to CCC rigs for a decent price so that when fitting my BC I can actually make the choice if I want to use CCC rigs so I can free a med slot for an afterburner, or maybe a tracking computer. Wait, even a web could work. Or I could decide for some armor rigs so I can free up a low-slot and maybe fit a heatsink or keep as it is and benefit from an increased tank. Maybe I'll even go for some weapon rigs to increase my optimal or my damage.
You say this system removes choice? I say it adds hundreds.
The only thing that will come from the change you're suggesting is that richer players will have even more advantages over those that do not spend 16 hours a day grinding ISK.
What this patch will do is introduce a more reasonable spending limit on ships. It will make it so that you can only spend 10mill on a frigate before it reaches around it's max performance.
Exactly the same as you can only have so many SPs dedicated to flying frigates before it reaches it's max performance.
This patch will not remove choices. It will add tons of choices. Instead of wondering only about what modules to fit you also have to wonder about rigs and how the 2 interact.
All this patch will do is even out the playing field so that newer poorer players can also enjoy flying rigged drakes into lvl 4 missions. So that they also get the joy of flying those 6km/s frigates in PvP.
And for the older richer players it will only make it so that they'll have to spend less time grinding ISK and can spend more time doing what they enjoy because the rigs they buy are cheaper.
Everybody wins save for the players that win fights not by skill, intelligence or tactics but instead by spending insane amounts of ISK on their ships.
|
irion felpamy
Minmatar
SkillzKillz
United For 0rder
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 14:39:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Emperor Cheney
Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 12/07/2009 02:43:03
Do not support this ridiculous whine. "I might not be able to feel extra-special for spending 200 mil on a frigate anymore. Here are fifteen (15!) paragraphs about why that is horrible!" Oh, also there is the danger of "cookie cutter setups." That's pretty amazing.
Agreeing with this and not supported.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 17:56:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Cpt Gobla
Totally disagree.
For a few year old vets with 2 accounts both having marauders grinding lvl 4 missions it might be a matter of: Should I spend 45mill extra on rigs or not?
For however another rather large portion of the player base. The more casually orientated crowd. The question is instead: Should I spend 45mill... ow wait, don't actually have that much money to waste. nvm.
For us the current rigging system does not give options. In fact it takes about every single choice I have away. Because I can't use CCC rigs I have to fill my med slots with cap recharges to become cap-stable. Because I can't use damage rigs I have to fill my low slots with heat sinks or gyrostabs to deal ganky damage.
I would love access to CCC rigs for a decent price so that when fitting my BC I can actually make the choice if I want to use CCC rigs so I can free a med slot for an afterburner, or maybe a tracking computer. Wait, even a web could work. Or I could decide for some armor rigs so I can free up a low-slot and maybe fit a heatsink or keep as it is and benefit from an increased tank. Maybe I'll even go for some weapon rigs to increase my optimal or my damage.
You say this system removes choice? I say it adds hundreds.
The only thing that will come from the change you're suggesting is that richer players will have even more advantages over those that do not spend 16 hours a day grinding ISK.
What this patch will do is introduce a more reasonable spending limit on ships. It will make it so that you can only spend 10mill on a frigate before it reaches around it's max performance.
Exactly the same as you can only have so many SPs dedicated to flying frigates before it reaches it's max performance.
This patch will not remove choices. It will add tons of choices. Instead of wondering only about what modules to fit you also have to wonder about rigs and how the 2 interact.
All this patch will do is even out the playing field so that newer poorer players can also enjoy flying rigged drakes into lvl 4 missions. So that they also get the joy of flying those 6km/s frigates in PvP.
And for the older richer players it will only make it so that they'll have to spend less time grinding ISK and can spend more time doing what they enjoy because the rigs they buy are cheaper.
Everybody wins save for the players that win fights not by skill, intelligence or tactics but instead by spending insane amounts of ISK on their ships.
Actually, the option I gave provides a chance for the less wealthy to close the gap without making everyone equal. My system essentially implements meta levels to the system rather than sizes that skew cost.
Want better performance, fine, pay for it, want to just boost your ship a bit, fine too, but don't cheapen the work of some for the sake of others.
I have never understood this casual player arguement. I'm a casual player. I don't expect to be as wealthy as some Mom's basement dweller who plays eve 16 hrs a day.
What ****es me off is people who want the easy road to life b/c they can't figure out how to make things work faster.
Half the nay arguments in this thread remind me of a thread a while back about 0.0 income from ratting. People were constantly saying 20-30 mil an hr is the limit, yet I could go out there in a standard t2 hac with a hauler on standby in a station and pull in much closer to 60 mil an hr. Is it my fault for understanding how to utilize my time to the full benefit over someone who'd rather go out there and do it the wrong way?
I've got alts in newer corps, I've got spies in alliances. The truth is, the guys who complain about being causal players are really the guys who are a) too young to know better (people who prolly shouldn't be in a battle cruiser less not a rigged ship) or b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 18:50:00 -
[84]
I support his first message
--
|
Cpt Gobla
The Dark Space Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 19:21:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Cpt Gobla on 14/07/2009 19:22:30
Originally by: Yaay
Actually, the option I gave provides a chance for the less wealthy to close the gap without making everyone equal. My system essentially implements meta levels to the system rather than sizes that skew cost.
Want better performance, fine, pay for it, want to just boost your ship a bit, fine too, but don't cheapen the work of some for the sake of others.
I have never understood this casual player arguement. I'm a casual player. I don't expect to be as wealthy as some Mom's basement dweller who plays eve 16 hrs a day.
What ****es me off is people who want the easy road to life b/c they can't figure out how to make things work faster.
Half the nay arguments in this thread remind me of a thread a while back about 0.0 income from ratting. People were constantly saying 20-30 mil an hr is the limit, yet I could go out there in a standard t2 hac with a hauler on standby in a station and pull in much closer to 60 mil an hr. Is it my fault for understanding how to utilize my time to the full benefit over someone who'd rather go out there and do it the wrong way?
I've got alts in newer corps, I've got spies in alliances. The truth is, the guys who complain about being causal players are really the guys who are a) too young to know better (people who prolly shouldn't be in a battle cruiser less not a rigged ship) or b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
I see where you're coming from.
But imho you're coming from the totally wrong direction.
I'm not saying that your tiered rigs are a bad idea. In fact had it not been a replacement for the sized rigs idea I would have definitely supported it.
But what exactly is wrong with the sized rigs idea? What's so bad about giving poorer players the option to fly the same quality frigates as you can?
Making 60mill an hour you can still field rigged T2 equipped BS for PvP while I can not as they're simply way too expensive. You can still field rigged T2 command ships which I can't. Maybe you can even field carriers or even better, I don't know. I sure can't.
What's so horribly wrong with allowing me to field the same quality frigate as you can? Why does your frigate have to be better just because you have found a perfect way to rat? It's not my fault either that I don't have access to your method of ratting.
I don't want the easy way. I don't want T2 fit rigged Sleipnirs appearing instead of reapers when I dock in my pod.
I just don't want to have to own a marauder, HAC, CS or whatever and grind rats, missions or whatever to be able to field a competitive frigate! I want to be able to field a good ship in PvP after 2-3 months of playing. Not just throw-away ships for me to 'learn' in until I manage your 60mill/hr technique after 2 years of playing before I can field a well fit frigate!
Notice how I said frigate every time. I totally agree that it's not fair that those who go around wasting time and following cookie cutters not earn the same as people who went out and managed to get real information and tactics first hand and as such should not be able to fit and field expensive ships such as BS, CS, dreads, carriers etc.
But we're talking about frigates and cruisers here. Every time I hear pro PvPers talking about newbies they say that you can join from day 1 in a tackling frigate helping out. But now that this patch is on the horizon enabling those very same newbies to field more properly fit frigates that can potentially match those of more experienced players we get complaints.
Please explain: What is wrong with somebody that's at the stage he's doing lvl 3 missions in a BC is able to field a rigged frigate in PvP? And I'm not talking about any kind of diminished meta rigs, I'm talking about full blown rigs.
for the coming months I won't be able to field properly fit HACs, BS, recons etc. And probably for the coming year CS, carriers and/or dreads. But I'd like to be able to field a properly fit and rigged frigate by now.....
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 21:57:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Yaay
*emo crying*
Hey, I heard about you, your one of those "The glass is half empty" kind of guys right?
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 00:26:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Cpt Gobla
the problem is, rigs were ment to define differences in ships. They were advantage at a cost. There is nothing that says a rigged ship will always beat a non rigged ship. The problem is, if you let this one go, just like we've let so many others go in the past, then it's one more step towards making everyone equal for no cost.
This game was built on cost vs reward. Risk vs reward. You drop the price on rigs, you remove risk. The lower the risk in game, the less fun it is for everyone. I always loved the quote in the incredible that said when everyone becomes special, nobody is. This is a step away from uniqueness. It's also a step away from competition to have the best stuff. Both of those things are what drive this game.
This game is the Competition to be the best at whatever cost. For some that means hours played, for some that means blobbing, for some that means griefing for hours on end, or scamming, or whatever. It's supposed to be hard, it's supposed to be demanding. That's what motivates people to do better.
I just do not like removing aspirations from the game. And removing rig cost for frigates and cruisers in the manner in which they are choosing is doing just that.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
LegendaryFrog
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 01:13:00 -
[88]
Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 15/07/2009 01:13:38
Quote:
b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
Oh Yaay, never change. "Anyone who disagrees with my idea or wants some part of this game to be more accessible in some way is just stupid or lazy"
Not supported. Tech 1 rigs SHOULD be relatively cheap, such that a little more money can grant you a little extra performance out of your ship, relative to its size. Tech 2 rigs are for the people who want to spend the big bucks min/maxing their ship.
|
Yaay
The Aggressors
Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 03:30:00 -
[89]
Originally by: LegendaryFrog
Edited by: LegendaryFrog on 15/07/2009 01:13:38
Quote:
b) people to stupid or lazy to play this game effectively.
Oh Yaay, never change. "Anyone who disagrees with my idea or wants some part of this game to be more accessible in some way is just stupid or lazy"
Not supported. Tech 1 rigs SHOULD be relatively cheap, such that a little more money can grant you a little extra performance out of your ship, relative to its size. Tech 2 rigs are for the people who want to spend the big bucks min/maxing their ship.
A goon telling me about stupidity 
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Terrigal
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 04:30:00 -
[90]
No one fits T2 rigs anyway. Is 100x the cost (isk or salvage components) for a 5% increase worth it, I think not. The only issue I may have with these is new smaller rigs will be if there not available like the existing rigs. CCP will have to seed the market with 250k x how many of the new rigs. If this doesnt happen they'll become just like the old T2 BPO's, ie dam I wasnt on the day of release and now I cant get any of them. 
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |