EVE Search - Blaster Battleship Concept - Pimping the Hyperion with smooth love

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Blaster Battleship Concept - Pimping the Hyperion with smooth love

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.11 20:51:00 - [1] As a long time blaster connoisseur with a vested interest in ramming giant buttplug-shaped monstrosities at people, I feel I should reiterate what I've been saying since the day Tier 3 Battleships were announced. Namely, that the current implementation of the Hyperion is an utter waste of database space and should be changed to suit my personal vision of win immediately. My reasoning and logic is based around the assumption that the Hyperion is meant to do battleship blaster warfare really well, as stated by the description and game developers themselves. If this is somehow wrong or misguided, I will immediately drop the issue and instead begin pestering devs for a torpedo Abaddon. Without further ado, changes in green hell yes! 1. Slot layout Current: 8 high, 5 medium, 6 low Improved: 8 high, 4 medium, 7 low 2. Fittings Current: 15,750 mw, 600 tf base (19,687.5 mw, 750 tf - lvl 5 skills) Improved: 20,000 mw, 660 tf base (25,000 mw, 825 tf - lvl 5 skills) 3. Bonuses Current: 5% large hybrid weapon damage, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount Improved: 10% large blaster damage, 7.5% bonus to armor repair amount 4. Drones Current: 100mbit/s bandwidth, 100m3 capacity Improved: 50mbit/s bandwidth, 150m3 capacity 5. Speed Current: 105m/s Megathron, 110m/s Hyperion Improved: 105m/s Hyperion, 110m/s Megathron End results in gold plating cause I can: - absolutely terrible with railguns - half the explosive and em damage - 43% more turret damage, 50% less drone damage, net gain of +10% damage vs Megathron in plated/damage Neutron setups - neutrons can be fitted with active tank setup, net gain of +14% damage and +37.5% repair/s (winwinwinwinwin) - doesn't require faction hardeners (cpu) in active configuration, unlike Mega, keeping cost/insurance/value in check on already pricy violence boat - if you plan on hitting sub-BS targets, bring friends with webs These five sacred changes make the Hyperion a more directed, hardcore, effective and most importantly - manly ship at the one job its meant to perform: stabbing other battleships in the face. The Megathron remains pretty damn good at ballters.. blaters.. blasters (wtf) because its harder to counter with smaller ships or range, and way more practical for RR gangs or solo/roaming where utility slot (probes, neut, salvage) is meaningful. My basic argument for 'why' this is an excellent trade rests on how utterly useless the Hyperion's supposed versatility is. I'll post full reasoning if pestered but otherwise, your obedient approval and praise is sought
ark maphar	Posted - 2009.08.11 21:26:00 - [2] i support these changes. DOWN WITH BLASTERTHRONS! ALL HAIL THE HYPHERIONS!!!!!!
Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.08.11 21:27:00 - [3] I said at the time the Hyp was announced, that it should have been the sniper and the Mega boosted for it's blastership role. My thoughts haven't changed, so I'll say no to your changes. As it stands, the 5 mids on the Hyp, actually give it 'other' fitting options. Plus the Mega still looks far better than the Hyp. Regards Mag's
ark maphar	Posted - 2009.08.11 21:30:00 - [4] "Plus the Mega still looks far better than the Hyp." you......insult.......the most............beautiful ship! (exept the dominix) HOW DARE YOU!
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.08.11 22:32:00 - [5] I just think the fittings look a bit.. exagerated. Same fitting class as a maelstrom or abaddon that need to fit tachyons or 1400mm. Also why to limit it to short range? No battleship has this type of limitation. It could open a huge can of worms. You could make a lot of people ANGRY. Specially because its now the highest damage sniper in game ( i know.. few people even try it). The slot layout is VERY logical.. but you know ccp not likely to give it same layout as the mega :( And I know the 8 5 6 is a terrible layout, sharing same problem tempest and hyperion of a layout that allow no real focus on anything. To match that on a realistic scenario you should for example allow the tempest enough fittings to load 2 LAR and tier 3 weapons with 2 heavy neuts. Not very likely to happen. Altough I woudl like if ccp moved towards more radically different ships inside same class and race.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War Banzai Boyz	Posted - 2009.08.11 22:43:00 - [6] Do we really need any more superspecialized ships among tech1/tech2 ones? I don't think so. Moreover, the changes you propose are just too good. No one sane fits Geddon with Beams - should we have -10% rof on it as well? That's not the Hype itself, but the whole active tanking scheme that needs some love. Among evident active tankers Hype isn't that bad. I'd say - Brutix/Eos and Claymore are. I second the idea of boosting its CPU/PG, though. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Odinegras Gallente 0utbreak KrautbreaK	Posted - 2009.08.11 23:02:00 - [7] Hyperion should have been an ewar boat... but oh well, gallente have 2 blaster boats :S
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.12 02:16:00 - [8] Originally by: ark maphar i support these changes. DOWN WITH BLASTERTHRONS! ALL HAIL THE HYPHERIONS!!!!!! I'll ignore the last comment and send you a complimentary t-shirt anyway. Originally by: Seishi Maru I just think the fittings look a bit.. exagerated. Same fitting class as a maelstrom or abaddon that need to fit tachyons or 1400mm. It only looks dramatic, but its not exaggerated in the least. Both Hyperion and Megathron can already fit a full rack of any gun - but that isn't the whole picture. Close range requires mwd and injector to be viable, both of which consume extra grid. At that point the Hyperion runs out while Megathron doesn't. Then if you get into gank vs active, active setups require 4000-4600 more powergrid, at which point the Hyperion can't even use Ions whereas the Megathron can. So just to repeat, Hyperion can't even fit the equivalent passive or active setups as the Megathron to begin with. Its got +312mw powergrid over the Mega and an 8th turret that consumes ~1600 or ~2100 extra, lawl. 2000 of the 4750 pg boost is just for parity, the rest is so that it can use Neutrons in active mode. If it can't do that much, the damage difference is under 5% thanks to the difference in drone power. And actually goes negative if we keep the 50mbit/s change. Originally by: Seishi Maru Also why to limit it to short range? No battleship has this type of limitation. It could open a huge can of worms. You could make a lot of people ANGRY. Specially because its now the highest damage sniper in game ( i know.. few people even try it). The guns limit you to short range, not the ship. If you don't change the bonus to accommodate for this fact, you either end up with a weak bonus or one that overpowers the ship with railguns. Nobody is going to cry about losing their fleet Hyperion for one simple reason: Nobody who participates in fleet battles is so damn loyal to their alliance that spending 40mil+ more to do 11% more damage on a ship that needs a third sensor booster, tracks worse, and is likely to get doomsdayed or ganked makes a lot of sense. Originally by: Seishi Maru The slot layout is VERY logical.. but you know ccp not likely to give it same layout as the mega :( And I know the 8 5 6 is a terrible layout, sharing same problem tempest and hyperion of a layout that allow no real focus on anything. Its closer to being a Megathron now than it would be with an identical slot layout, because of all the compromises. And its not like 8/4/7 is unique to the Megathron, its the same as Apoc and Typhoon. Its probably as generic as it gets for armor tanking BS. I don't think devs are as small minded as you imply to be stopped by something so trivial. And if they were, I'll just whine that we don't want a Gallente Tempest :(
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.12 02:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Fon Revedhort Do we really need any more superspecialized ships among tech1/tech2 ones? I don't think so. The whole point of tech 2 is specialization, so I don't know why you chose to complain about that. As for tech 1, specialization already exists. Or maybe you missed the part where a Rokh is terrible with blasters and missiles, despite being able to fit them. Or how a tech 1 frigate has probing bonuses. Or how the Myrmidon and Dominix are utterly worthless without drones. There are exactly three Gallente weapons: drones, blasters, railguns. We got three Gallente BS, two of which do drones and railguns really well. And everyone seems to believe the blaster battleship concept is hanging by a thread. So just because you feel uncomfortable with a blaster bonus doesn't mean its not the greatest idea in the history of EVE Online. At least compared to CCP who puts mini jump portals and mini doomsdays on sub-capitals, its pretty tame. Originally by: Fon Revedhort Moreover, the changes you propose are just too good. Well I disagree, and if you'd like to have a math duel over it go ahead. You can have the first punch if you dare. Originally by: Fon Revedhort No one sane fits Geddon with Beams - should we have -10% rof on it as well? wat Originally by: Fon Revedhort That's not the Hype itself, but the whole active tanking scheme that needs some love. Among evident active tankers Hype isn't that bad. I'd say - Brutix/Eos and Claymore are. I second the idea of boosting its CPU/PG, though. Active tanking is better than it has ever been, there is nothing wrong with it. The fact that I'd still rather fly an active megathron with no active bonus should tell you something. Originally by: Odinegras Hyperion should have been an ewar boat... but oh well, gallente have 2 blaster boats :S Get out.
Severice Crushed Ambitions	Posted - 2009.08.12 02:29:00 - [10] The ship is fine, we dont' care that you want to turn it into a ship that YOU specifically want. Some changes... MAYBE. But not yours.

DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.12 02:32:00 - [11] You might not care, but people care. People who are much more likely to choose my implementation over the current one, because the ship is more dangerous and awesome. But even though you don't care for it, you still care enough to post that you don't care for it. I also have a history of being right and getting my way in the end when people recognize how right I am (see: Bombers)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.08.12 07:11:00 - [12] DC- I'm down with all the changes except one- changing the slot layout. Yeah, I know, it would make it a nice 'pure' blaster ship, but I REALLY like the 5th mid for a sensor booster to allow me to catch targets. Otherwise I'd be using a Mega. Fitting a single rep/plate Ion II setup with Neutrons and a larger damage bonus with less drone bandwidth sounds awesome to me. But can we keep the 5th mid? -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.08.12 07:37:00 - [13] Originally by: DigitalCommunist You might not care, but people care. People who are much more likely to choose my implementation over the current one, because the ship is more dangerous and awesome. But even though you don't care for it, you still care enough to post that you don't care for it. I also have a history of being right and getting my way in the end when people recognize how right I am (see: Bombers) Give maelstrom +100% damage bonus and +2 mids + 2lows. Im sure every maelstrom pilot will prefer my implementation over current TQ one.
Lana Torrin Minmatar Republic Military Skool	Posted - 2009.08.12 08:22:00 - [14] The only thing I agree on for this ship is the increased power grid.. Its supposed to be a blaster ship according to the history, but its not very good at it. Slot layout, bonuses, speed, everything else is fine how it is. Navy Hyperion???
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.08.12 13:48:00 - [15] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: DigitalCommunist You might not care, but people care. People who are much more likely to choose my implementation over the current one, because the ship is more dangerous and awesome. But even though you don't care for it, you still care enough to post that you don't care for it. I also have a history of being right and getting my way in the end when people recognize how right I am (see: Bombers) Give maelstrom +100% damage bonus and +2 mids + 2lows. Im sure every maelstrom pilot will prefer my implementation over current TQ one. me me me I want one me!!! But can I get it to use lazors instead? Would be even better :P
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.12 14:53:00 - [16] Originally by: Bellum Eternus DC- I'm down with all the changes except one- changing the slot layout. Yeah, I know, it would make it a nice 'pure' blaster ship, but I REALLY like the 5th mid for a sensor booster to allow me to catch targets. Otherwise I'd be using a Mega. Fitting a single rep/plate Ion II setup with Neutrons and a larger damage bonus with less drone bandwidth sounds awesome to me. But can we keep the 5th mid? My view on that: Sensor Booster certainly makes the ship more practical when you can't rely on somebody else, and is probably the best option for the 5th slot. But the benefits are really marginal, and its only the difference between catching a fast-warping BC or not. Even if you get a faster lock, this is one ship where you're not going to do much until you get in range anyways. Especially with only 5 mediums doing 158 dps at most. Also consider that anything smaller you catch at jumpin because of the SB probably has the ability to outrun you. Basically, SB is not as useful as you think it is and sort of a placebo module. In a lot of cases its offset by lag (negatively) or reaction time (positively). You might not do active tanking personally , but without the proper layout the repair bonus is only there to offset crap resists. We already have a good gank/passive ship in the Mega, and 8/4/7 gives the Hyperion that option as well, but what we don't have is a ship that can take lots of punishment in a small or 1v1 bs fight without RR support. Passive is good for larger 5+ man fights, and definitely better when you have RR teamwork on your side. But below that, active tanking always wins because the enemy damage is low enough that you can overcome it with dual repping for as long as you have cap charges. Your damage, even in a Neutron Hyperion, is probably going to need a bit of time to break an enemy BS. The problem with the Megathron in this department is that it repairs and tanks the same as any other armor tanking BS, and carries the same amount of cap charges. So even ignoring how much of your cap can get burned using mwd and blasters, you start with a survivability disadvantage because you need range to start dealing damage while they don't ( you start repping before they do ).
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.12 15:01:00 - [17] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Give maelstrom +100% damage bonus and +2 mids + 2lows. Im sure every maelstrom pilot will prefer my implementation over current TQ one. Personally, I don't think a net gain of 10% damage and a slight slot rearrangement is equivalent to having 16 turrets and 23 slots. Which is good, because I wouldn't want to be you when Maelstrom FOTM becomes pandemic and people are getting alpha'd by Maelstrom gangs at every corner. Its the sort of thing that could get a man lynched. My ideas are long-term-lynch-free. Its the only way to serve a second term!
1600 RT	Posted - 2009.08.12 17:29:00 - [18] Edited by: 1600 RT on 12/08/2009 17:30:18 those changes would make the blasterthorn inferior to your hype and sorry but i think its not right for the mega. the hype already do the plate+gank job better than the mega, the only drawback is the extra cost. im not saying hyperion is fine now but it need some sine tuning and not a complete rework: give it 17500 base PG so it can fit a full rack of ion + 1 heavy cap booster + 2 LAR + mwd, adjust CPU so it can fit everything w/o faction mods. leave the drone bay as it is now, leave the ships bonus,leave the slot layout
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.08.12 17:52:00 - [19] Originally by: DigitalCommunist <snipped for space> Well, when I'm doing the attacking, the sensor booster is the difference between making the tackle or not. And it also opens up an entire other class of ships that I can go after (BCs) solo with my Hype instead of having to limit myself to just battleships with respect to locking them before they have time to warp off. For me personally, it's more about what I can catch rather than what I can kill. I can kill just about anything I come across, even while being shot by gate guns. I'd fly an Astarte for the faster lock time if the increase in lock speed was actually worth it, but it's not. IMO all BCs should have the lock speed of cruisers, since BCs are supposed to be overgrown cruisers. I specifically active tank the Hype. My solo pirating setup is 8x Ion IIs with a single rep, plate and 3x rep rigs (2x amount, 1x cycle time). In my opinion this is the sweet spot (for the current balance) as far as DPS/Tank goes. If you go too far one way you lose too much tank, too far the other and you lose too much DPS. The sensor booster is there strictly to ensure that I get the initial tackle on the target. If I don't get that, I don't get a kill. Simple as that. If CCP were to make the game more offensive friendly by improving scan res of all ships then I'd say drop the 5th mid and add a low. Personally I'd just like to see the Kronos get about another 30 sensor strength and have it's scan res tripled. That would be the most perfect blaster ship in all of Eve. I'd never fly anything else. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Christina Bamar Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.08.12 20:04:00 - [20] The problem with the Hyperion is not the stats or slot layout. The problem is that the Hyperion does not have a well-defined role. Until it gets its own role then people are going to be constantly complaining that either the Hyperion or the Megathron or underpowered. Your changes basically turn the Hyperion into a better Megathron, which really accomplishes nothing. CEO, Agony Unleashed

Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS	Posted - 2009.08.12 20:33:00 - [21] Originally by: Christina Bamar The problem with the Hyperion is not the stats or slot layout. The problem is that the Hyperion does not have a well-defined role. Until it gets its own role then people are going to be constantly complaining that either the Hyperion or the Megathron or underpowered. Your changes basically turn the Hyperion into a better Megathron, which really accomplishes nothing. It would make the Hype into a superior blaster ship and would leave the Mega as king of the Gallente Railgun boats. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Ferkimer Burns Perkone	Posted - 2009.08.12 20:35:00 - [22] Don't need all those changes. Just deep-six the active tanking bonus and replace it with a 100% bonus to stasis webber drone optimal range, hitpoints, MWD, and speed reduction. Becomes a blaster boat par excellance
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.13 06:06:00 - [23] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: DigitalCommunist <snipped for space> <snipped your face> Look, you love your SB. I get it. You don't have to rationalize how it benefits you, but you need to understand how it falls outside the most important requirements for a Gallente Tier 3. If you were the type of person who wanted to use a BS to stomp all over smaller stuff, which makes more sense: Tier 1 BS; Dominix with its flexible fittings, and 50km+ drone reach that tears into small ships. - or - Tier 3 BS; Hyperion with <10km turrets, that needs to mwd into web range to pose a threat and has trouble tracking. Putting aside the fact that the Dominix is way better suited for dealing with smaller stuff even when both ships have 5 meds - consider that big, slow ships being big and slow and not being able to catch/**** small ships is not a problem in need of a solution. There is no rule that says your BS has to be a decent tackler to be good BS. If they can do more, then great news for your race, but even if the Gallente didn't already have this ability in their Battleship lineup I still wouldn't defend the position you take. Reason? Even if all your BS are pretty lame at hurting smaller targets (hello, Amarr), you can always use a smaller equivalent ship to deal with smaller targets. Sure, you won't have an overwhelming superiority anymore but equal ground is still good enough. Like if you're fighting BCs and can't catch them with your BS.. simply go get a BC yourself. But if your BS aren't competitive with other BS, its not like you can one-up them and drop a dread or something. If your Tier 3 is flaccid at the thing it supposedly excels at (close range warfare), it poses a bigger problem than losing a med slot and having one less overpowering solo ship. This disadvantage is offset by bringing more numbers, but its also amplified by them. This is why blaster battleship warfare tends to flake out pretty hard once you have more than 5 people in a fight. And the reason Gallente need a tier 3 that very clearly dominant over other BS at close range. Without one, blaster battleship warfare has far fewer practical applications because your ship is lucky to survive a single engagement, let alone multiples. If you were designing any ship to fill a specific role, and given limited ship resources, you wouldn't blow them on features/options that fall outside the scope of your role. Well you might, but then you're making a judgement call where you assume that what you have is enough and the extras won't take away too much. CCP made that judgement call and lost hard.
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.08.13 06:08:00 - [24] Originally by: Christina Bamar The problem with the Hyperion is not the stats or slot layout. The problem is that the Hyperion does not have a well-defined role. Until it gets its own role then people are going to be constantly complaining that either the Hyperion or the Megathron or underpowered. Your changes basically turn the Hyperion into a better Megathron, which really accomplishes nothing. Hyperion has a very clearly defined role, it just doesn't follow through on it. If we were debating about Apocs and Phoons, it would be harder to put fault on the implementation because they are actually intended to do various things decently. I'm not saying the Hyperion is a weak ship, I'm saying it has no justifiable reason to be decent at everything. If anything, it needs to be worse at everything before it can get better at something. And despite being significantly better with blasters (after my changes), the blaster Megathron is far from obsoleted. Originally by: Ferkimer Burns Don't need all those changes. Just deep-six the active tanking bonus and replace it with a 100% bonus to stasis webber drone optimal range, hitpoints, MWD, and speed reduction. Becomes a blaster boat par excellance Maybe you forgot that people who use web drones can web targets from really far out (the whole point of using web drones in the first place), and giving an optimal bonus to the drones themselves has zero relevance. And by grafting a drone-specific bonus to the ship, you're also saying it shouldn't be used with real drones that, you know,.. actually do damage. This is the kind of newbie tripe you'd expect to hear in Federal Navy Academy, I'm almost too ashamed to reply :(
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2009.08.13 13:24:00 - [25] I like the changes to the Hype, but wonder if these changes wouldn't also necessitate changes to the Mega. With some minor changes to the Mega as well, you'd have a rail-specific ship there, with the Hype for the blasters. That would sort that out at least. -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Gavin Darklighter Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.08.13 16:20:00 - [26] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Tier 1 BS; Dominix with its flexible fittings, and 50km+ drone reach that tears into small ships. Domi isnt an option for someone that engages under sentry fire. And 10% damage bonus + 7 lows = one stupid-strong blaster ship. OP quotes a 10% damage boost after you factor in the loss of drones, but you aren't factoring in the effect of upgrading to neutrons and getting another mag stab over the current hyperion. A faction MFS fit Hype with the suggested changes would hit ~1870 DPS while overloaded, and would have greater effective hitpoints than a 3x MFS mega would due to higher base HP on the hyperion. It would also be faster than the mega, would have a higher base scan res, and would would have a more versatility with its drone bay and the ability to carry three flights of mediums. Bellum also isnt the only one that likes five meds on a hype either. I happen to enjoy shield tanking my hyperions to maximize its damage output, and your proposed changes would hurt me as well. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Lucas Avidius Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.08.13 16:59:00 - [27] 10% is too much, even tho I would love to see Blasters restored to their proper glory somehow. 7.5% maybe.
snaike Last Haven Dark Taboo	Posted - 2009.08.13 17:18:00 - [28] Originally by: Mag's I said at the time the Hyp was announced, that it should have been the sniper and the Mega boosted for it's blastership role. My thoughts haven't changed, so I'll say no to your changes. As it stands, the 5 mids on the Hyp, actually give it 'other' fitting options. Plus the Mega still looks far better than the Hyp. Tbh, I'm with mag's. The megathron is too beautiful a ship to be made utterly redundant (especially as there's already calls that it is, but we can ignore the whiners). I'd much rather see small changes made to both the mega and hype to accomodate the mega's role as a blastership, and the hype, which imho should really be more of a rail boat; both of the ships current slot layout would seem to suggest those respective roles. That being said, my opinion can be taken with a pinch of salt. I have a lot of experience in the mega, but none in the hype Cryin' Won't Help You, Prayin' Will Do You No Good
Ronin Reborn Wrath of Fenris	Posted - 2009.08.13 18:36:00 - [29] Edited by: Ronin Reborn on 13/08/2009 18:36:47 @ DC you say that one of the major problems with blaster bs is that 'they scale so horribly', yet you retain the repair amount bonus which forces you to either fit an active tank or end up with an inferior passive tank compared to the mega AND effectively lose a bonus. Fitting a Hype to take advantage of both of these bonuses really limits where and when you can use the ship, far more so than a plated b-thron in my opinion. By your own admission you'd want to be in a fight of 5v5 or smaller, starting at close range. I'd like to reccomend... 5% Large Hybrid Damage 10% Large Hybrid Falloff 125/m3 dronebay/width Fittings for the extra turret. Bit more damage with a full flight of heavies and potentially more dps from larger guns due to the extra fittings. Falloff implies blasters, and gives the ship a bit more reach in RR gangs with null + nuetrons. The Megathron retains its tracking bonus making it better with rails, though it loses none of it's present day potentcy.
Kismo	Posted - 2009.08.13 23:52:00 - [30] I think a fifth mid is a really important thing because it lets you fit a MWD+Web+Disruptor+Cap Booster+ECCM



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.