EVE Search - [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 45 post(s)
Krell Kroenen Miners In Possession 115	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:13:00 - [151] - Quote Prometheus Exenthal wrote: Takeshi Yamato wrote: The Ancillary Armor Repairer : my first thought is that laser ships get screwed because they already need a cap injector for their weapons and tend to have low cargo capacity. Other than this it seems like an extremely potent module. If you didn't read the proposed BC changes, IIRC all the BCs (including Amarr), got larger cargos. Wrong the Cane and Cyclone had their cargo holds reduced.
Ana Fox Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 51	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:14:00 - [152] - Quote Why not add to existing skills what new armor upgrades skill is giving.It will be much less stress than adding new one. It is not big deal but for ASB you dont need to train any new skill so it would be fair not to add new for armor too,even it is not related to new armor module. You have new skill added for reactive armor module,so really no need to add new skill for every new stuff you get in game,just rephrase old ones and it will be more fair.It is ok to add more depth but this would second new skill in armor tanking in short time.
Suitonia Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance 149	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:14:00 - [153] - Quote I was hoping you would get rid of the mass penalty all together and replace it with a MWD/AB thrust penalty. Non-Attack Gallente and Amarr ships have the worst agility of their respective classes (usually) anyway, and the additional mass penalty just further emphasises this. I also feel that having different penalties across different rigs and modules makes it more confusing for new players. With shield Extenders and Shield rigs you have a Signature Radius Penalty. (Simple) With Armor you have plates which give you added Mass, rigs which will now either slow down your base speed or increase the power-grid of active tanking modules, you then have a further skill to decrease the penalty of mass addition from plates. Mass is very difficult to understand from a new player perspective anyway, aside from us hardcore EFT addicts and veterans, who knows how adding 300,000 mass to a Thorax is going to effect it without looking it up? The new ASB module for armor tanking looks good, but I feel like it's only solving half the problem. Yes Armor Tanking is in dire need of being more slot efficient because generally speaking Active armor tanking requires more slots to be efficient than shield tanking, this leaves armor tanking with less options to itemize towards damage, damage projection, speed (and the fact that armor rigs, and plates slow them down too). And the new module which essentially means you can get away with only fitting it (1 slot) vs the usual 2 armor repair modules needed to have an acceptable tank. However it doesn't really solve the following issues, which I mostly think are to do with rig balancing. Trimark and CDFE's are still way too good. Most rigs are about 50% as effective as the appropriate comparable module, for example, resistance rigs give 50% of an active hardener, damage rigs are 50% of a damage module, Auxiliary Thrusters are 50% of an overdrive. while a trimark is 100% of a tech II Energized Armor Layering module. The opportunity cost of not fitting Trimarks/CDFE's is way too high. Why is this a problem for Armor Tanking? It detracts from the options and availability of them itemizing towards damage/speed through rig slots, fitting 2x damage rigs vs 3x trimark (or indeed, CDFE) is at such a heavy loss that it becomes not an option. Speed rigs also have an Armor penalty which makes fitting them painful for any armor tanking ship looking to cover their weakness, and shield tankers for the most part laugh at the penalty. I propose the following; Trimarks and CDFE's reduced in effectiveness. T1: From 15% to 10% T2: From 20% to 15% ~Resistance rigs are fine since they're stacking penalised. Trimarks and CDFE's would still be the best case rigs to fit if you have more than 2 active hardeners or 1 + Gang Links. It just makes them less powerful and means fitting other rigs doesn't come at such a high opportunity cost. All T1 damage rigs. (Burst Aerator / Collision Accelerator rigs) reduced in Calibration cost from 200 to 150. ~ This change allows 2x damage rigs to be fitted with another rig, for example a optimal range rig, or a tanking/speed rig. This makes itemizing towards damage easier. Note: T2 rigs calibration if fine where it is now and doesn't need to be changed. All Astronautic rigs changed from % armor penalty to % structure penalty. ~ Makes the penalty more universal for both armor/shield tankers. now fitting an auxiliary thruster on your plated Harbinger to cover your bases isn't completely self defeating. Also means they now share the same penalty with Nano-fibres. In addition to these. (Where I think the main problem lies), I'd like to see the following. Armor Plates: Mass penalty removed. Replaced with a flat % MWD/AB thrust penalty. If you want to increase the usage of seldom used plates: i.e. 800mm and 50mm, then put a lower flat % on those rigs to make them more attractive, I'd put the % as being about the same speed decrease as what is on TQ right now for fitting a plate to a similar sized ship. ~ Why make this change? First of all I think this makes the penalty and module much more understanding for new players. It's much easier to understand that a plate is going to decrease how much boost you get from a propulsion module by a certain % than it is to understand the penalty of adding mass to your ship, which is different depending on which ship you're flying and can sometimes have other ramifications such as a 1600mm Harbinger not being able to jump through a C1 wormhole that every other BC can etc. . It also means that plates are more accessible for roaming gangs, since there will no longer be an agility penalty, so roaming through space is quicker although flat-line MWD speeds stay about the same so this doesn't make them that much better at damage mitigation with propulsion module active. I also think this makes MWD/Scram setups more accessible for armor tankers, since although they do less damage and advance slower than typical shield tanked mwd/scram setups, they have better damage mitigation if they can get that tight orbit in scram range which having the better agility improves. I've always like the 'sig tank' aspect of armor tanking which made stuff like AHACS work, bringing that aspect to smaller gangs. This also makes catching ships faster than you easier for veterans flying plated ships, the better agility means you can turn around and 'slingshot' someone into scram range better. Armor Rigs: Base speed penalty changed to MWD/AB thrust %. ~ This makes armor tanking much more comparable and easier to understand for new players. Now both Armor Plates and the rigs have the same penalty, similar to shield extenders and shield rigs. It also means that while speeds with armor rigs stay about the same, base speed is increased meaning again, armor tankers have slightly better damage mitigation in scram range and adds to that 'sig tanking' aspect.
Capqu Love Squad 71	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:16:00 - [154] - Quote fozzie please remember that active tanking armor ships already have to carry a **** ton of boosters (usually the high end of each "division" 800s, 200s etc) for their cap booster and if you make this new module like the shield one (working best with the lowest of each division) the armor tank is gonna have serious trouble with cargo space and micromanagement http://pizza.eve-kill.net
Inepsa1987 Mind Games. 25	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:22:00 - [155] - Quote Better than nothing I suppose. :) Spaceship Pilot.
Burseg Sardaukar Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 215	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:22:00 - [156] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Heimdallofasgard wrote: Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits: Fit And that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :( These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits. And you can still meta fit the Nos. Been down this 1PG needed hell many times with AF's Hey, as a dude that lives in lowsec, you should read my idea on how to "fix" it... in Blog format, complete with a spreadsheet! http://3xxxd.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-buff-lowsec.html
Dersen Lowery Laurentson INC StructureDamage 384	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:24:00 - [157] - Quote Looks interesting overall. It introduces a broad contrast between Amarr laser (slow, buffer, flexible engagement envelope) and Gallente blaster (fast, active, short engagement envelope) philosophies. I wish this was off topic, but while you're looking at armor rigs, could you move Salvage Tackles somewhere else, or take off their velocity penalty? Noctis pilots everywhere will thank you. Malcanis for CSM 8
AtomicConnor Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 1	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:24:00 - [158] - Quote On the topic of the AAR: I'm curious as to why there seems to be a need to make Armor tanking ships more like Shield tanking ships. Shield tanking suits a fast-paced, high-speed, high-DPS playstyle, while armor tanking suits a slower, tankier playstyle. Shouldn't the two be more distinguished and unique as apposed to similar but somewhat different? I was under the impression it worked like this: Active Shield Tanking - Short burst of massive tank. Kill the enemy quickly before your tank wears out. (more damage) [example: ASB Ferox] Active Armor Tanking - Prolonged stream of constant rep. Become super tanky and slowly destroy your enemy. (more tank) [example: Triple-Rep Myrmidon] I thought that was the way it was supposed to be. Shield has less tank, but more damage and armor has more tank, but less damage...
elitatwo Congregatio 62	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:28:00 - [159] - Quote Roime wrote: I also echo the concern that balancing could have been more easily done by - reducing armor rep cycle time (reps happen at the end of cycle anyway) - reducing armor rep fitting costs - reducing armor rep cap usage - increasing armor rep hull bonuses to 10% This proposed solution forces armor tankers to learn another new skill (we just had to train RAH skill), increases the already massive fitting cost imbalance even further while doing nothing to the cap issue or making the 7.5% hull bonus any more worthwhile. That's what I am proposing in another thread, except the hull rep thing. I proposed to reduce the cycle time of medum and large armor reps by 25% and another response I got was to cut the capacitor amount per cycle by 50%. God I like that idea! Dear CCP Fozzie, I like where this is headed but I have some concerns. Did you take exile boosters into account for the AAR's? But on the other hand, you cannot repair enough armor in the time it gets blow away and because the repair occurs after the cycle was the reason I came up with the idea of reducing the cycle time in the first place. When do you think, we could get our hands on those on SISI?
Omnathious Deninard Extrinsic Operations 446	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:29:00 - [160] - Quote How soon do you think we will be able to see these on the test server? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting
mkint 958	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:31:00 - [161] - Quote The important question: what metrics do you intend to use to determine if this balance pass is successful? Is it going to be completely arbitrary, or are you going to actually look at real numbers? If this balance is demonstrably enemic, or breaks something, what do you intend to do to fix it? Maxim 34: If you're leaving scorch-marks, you need a bigger gun.
Alticus C Bear University of Caille Gallente Federation 130	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:40:00 - [162] - Quote Rig changes sound good Plate changes sound good, nice touch with the extra mass reduction on the smaller for ship class plates. I do not object to new skills but this plus the resistance shifting skill for the RAH seem a lot over the skill requirements for Shield tanking. Ancillary Armor Repairer. Could be overpowered, will be the must fit module for PVP just like ASBGÇÖs. I do like how you have decoupled this change from the existing reppers leaving them intact for normal use. Incursus Change My concern is how this affects the Gallente niche of active armour tanking, there are threads every other day regarding the resistance versus rep amount bonuses, the rep bonuses needs to be 10% for it to maintain a clear advantage over the resistance bonused ships given the other advantages they have, it also nerfs the ship with standard reppers (should still be an option). Have you considered adjusting the AAR rep amount down a touch and giving all Gallente Active Rep Ships a 10% bonus?
Takeshi Yamato Ministry of War Amarr Empire 577	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:42:00 - [163] - Quote Some numbers to help us understand what the changes mean for active armor tanking. A Prophecy outfitted with: 1x Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer 2x EANM II 1x DCU II 1x Aux. Nano Pump I 1x Nanobot Accelerator 1x Nanobot Overcharger I An overloaded AAR with charges nets us a 550 dps tank which is very respectable. If we go with a dual rep setup, 2x medium armor repairer II nets us a 651 dps tank with half the overload time. The Nanobot Overcharger is key here as overloading boost repair/sec by 71%. I may have underestimated how good it is. It breathes new life into previously underpowered armor repairers.
Rroff The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 186	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:44:00 - [164] - Quote Like the idea on the rigs - could give some interesting new dynamics to smaller gang warfare. Also like the idea of tweaking the sub-1600mm plates to make them more relevant in a different way to the 1600mm plate, especially giving the 800mm plate a new lease of life could inject some fresh gameplay directions. However not a fan of the skill to reduce the mass - seems like "yet another skill to train up". Personally I'd say that bonus would be better off moved to a per level in ship skill role bonuses on specific ships i.e. the deimos is prettty much crying out for it and a sub-system on the legion with it probably wouldn't go amiss either. Seems like some good ideas overall for breaking the tired old patterns armor warfare has become.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 80	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:45:00 - [165] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Ancillary Armor Repairer Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end. Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded) Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads Limited to one per ship A little clarification about the cap usage of the AAR would be helpful please. You say the AAR uses the same cap as a normal armor repper. 1. Is this affected by anything that lowers cap usage on normal reppers, like the warfare link? 2. At base stats a small t1 rep uses 40cap, will a cap 50 be completely consumed by the AAR? If so this is 80% efficient. At base stats a medium t1 rep uses 160 cap, will a cap 200 be completely consumed by the AAR? If so this is 80% efficient. At base stats a large t1 rep uses 400 cap. This is 100% efficient. 3. If the answer to 1. was yes, then using the warfare link makes the AAR even less efficient in all cases. 4. When not loaded the ASB reps normally but uses the ship's own cap - why does the AAR suffer a reduced amount of rep once it begins to draw on the ship's cap? 5. The large t1 ASB reps 2.17x the amount of a large t1 shield booster whilst the AAR reps 2.25x it's standard equivalent. The additional rep is too small to justify penalties that the ASB doesn't get, especially given it is pre-penalised by the one per ship limit. Otherwise, I'm a supporter of new skills where they make sense and add more diversity. Older chars like Nik run out of things they want to train and it leads to a sense of being directionless. I think the rig penalty changes were good and will certainly help the active armour tanking fits, though the yawning hole underneath armour buffer fits and the issues with an active local-rep-only bonus still remains. Generally this seems innovative and I welcome it but more needs to be done before active tanking will be in a good place for all ships versus the resist tanking alternatives.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 467	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:45:00 - [166] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes. At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane. Can't you just keep it the same and skip having a small AAR? =<
Jojo Jackson Dead Red Eye 170	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:45:00 - [167] - Quote Does not fix the main problems of balance between Shield and Armor tanking. It's a big difference, if the boost comes when I need it (ak "need shield NOW!!!") or several seconds later (ak "fuuuu, 0.0001 and my rep had save me :( "). It's a big difference, if you can just fit oversiced equip (L-booster @Cruiser/BC and XL-booster @BS) or barly fit intended reps (CPU+PG use is simply not balanced between booster and reps). Best excample is: Hurrican+med boost (59 shield/s) v Harbinger+med rep (53 armor/s) But who fits a MED booster @BCs? IF you fit an active tank then you use Large Booster and get 100 shield/s. Ever tryed to fit a Large Repair @Harbinger? It would give you 105 armor/s which is compareble to Large Boosters. It WOULD ... if your power grid wouldn't explode (2300/1875) while trying to fit it :(. And finaly on top of all boosters you gain this nice little auto-recharg for shields which can be allready more HP/s then armor repairs do. List to fix balance: - adjust CPU + PG need to be similar - adjust activation time of armor repairs (11.25 seconds for L-rep is a joke compared to 4 sec for L-booster. You are dead befor the rep hits!) Difference and alternatives are cool. But sometimes for the love a balance equality is better! Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Jorma Morkkis State War Academy Caldari State 388	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:56:00 - [168] - Quote Looks interesting. And just when I thought I was done with tanking skills... oh well.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1249	Posted - 2013.01.21 21:58:00 - [169] - Quote Good changes, 90% of the people in this thread are overlooking obvious answers (and are from my frickin alliance no less).
Edward Pierce GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 35	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:01:00 - [170] - Quote It will be interesting to see a rep/sec comparison between a hull with a 7.5% repair bonus and a hull with a 5% resistance bonus. Not sure the repair amount hull bonus is helpful enough even after these changes to active armor tanking. Please don't give both Gallente BCs a marginally useful bonus.
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Nation 2761	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:04:00 - [171] - Quote Edward Pierce wrote: It will be interesting to see a rep/sec comparison between a hull with a 7.5% repair bonus and a hull with a 5% resistance bonus. Not sure the repair amount hull bonus is helpful enough even after these changes to active armor tanking. Please don't give both Gallente BCs a marginally useful bonus. Trivial: 5% resist bonus: 1 / (1-(0.055)) = 4/3 = 1.33333. This applies to local repair, EHP, and incoming remote repair. 7.5% rep bonus: 1 + (.0755) = 1.375. This applies to only local repair. This should remain true for all of the changes in question. -Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1249	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:05:00 - [172] - Quote Edward Pierce wrote: Not sure the repair amount hull bonus is helpful enough On a non bonused hull, 1 AAR and 1 normal rep will give you more reps than a 3x rep set up. Thats non bonused, AND, it'll free up about 15pg that the 3rd rep was eating. Considering that a bonused hull will massively outrep a non bonused hull, AND that the newly redone gallent hulls are all agile as hell, AND wont be slowed by their armor parts now, I'd say that they're going to be an absolute terror to deal with .
Takeshi Yamato Ministry of War Amarr Empire 577	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:06:00 - [173] - Quote Some numbers to help us understand what the changes mean for active armor tanking. A Prophecy outfitted with: 1x Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer 2x EANM II 1x DCU II 1x Aux. Nano Pump I 1x Nanobot Accelerator 1x Nanobot Overcharger I An overloaded AAR with charges nets us a 550 dps tank which is very respectable. If we go with a dual rep setup, 2x medium armor repairer II nets us a 651 dps tank with half the overload time. The Nanobot Overcharger is key here as overloading boost repair/sec by +71%. What happens if we put 3x nanobot overchargers in there? Assuming the stacking penalties are the same as for all other modules (1x first, 0.86x second, 0.57x third) we're looking at overload boosting repair/sec by +171%. This would result in 646 dps tanked with the AAR setup.
elitatwo Congregatio 62	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:12:00 - [174] - Quote Takeshi Yamato wrote: Some numbers to help us understand what the changes mean for active armor tanking. A Prophecy outfitted with: 1x Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer 2x EANM II 1x DCU II 1x Aux. Nano Pump I 1x Nanobot Accelerator 1x Nanobot Overcharger I An overloaded AAR with charges nets us a 550 dps tank which is very respectable. If we go with a dual rep setup, 2x medium armor repairer II nets us a 651 dps tank with half the overload time. The Nanobot Overcharger is key here as overloading boost repair/sec by +71%. What happens if we put 3x nanobot overchargers in there? Assuming the stacking penalties are the same as for all other modules (1x first, 0.86x second, 0.57x third) we're looking at overload boosting repair/sec by +171%. This would result in 646 dps tanked with the AAR setup. Please, there is never ever a reason NOT to take drugs. I usually are lucky and never get any of the sideeffects anyway using exiles. Thing is, you need to burn the reps to as soon as you are commited while you can turn on heat on shield booster somewhat later if you need it. It's unsually much better to burn an invuln, because it lasts longer when you burn it then any rep.
Iris Bravemount Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 208	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:13:00 - [175] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: IamBeastx wrote: how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare? its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR! presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships! And also super overpowered. Please elaborate on this. The thread linked in my signature contains a comprehensive debate on the disparity mentioned by IamBeastx. I started this thread the first time the dev blogs mentionned fixing active tanking, asking for community input. Yet, no dev feedback was given so far. It would not be overpowered, it would just make active bonused ships usable in fleets without ignoring a bonus (thus leading to using another ship, with either a second weapons bonus or a resist bonus instead of the contextually useless active bonus). If you are thinking about Marauders in tournament matches, that's an extreme edge case and should be adressed separately if at all. Without a fix for that disparity, active bonused ships (armor or shield, same issue) will always be at a disadvantage in any and all situation involving RR. With the new logi t1 frigs and cruisers, there are more and more situations involving RR. Please save the active bonused ships from becoming gimmicks. I am really disappointed by the proposed changes. The mass reduction is all nice (still won't make a difference against a shield kiter, but it's a start), but the PWG penalty on active fits will further nerf the dps (gunsize) of armor tanked ships, already carrying less damage mods and fitting smaller guns than shield fits in general. I think that a reduction of the speed penalty on all armor rigs (not just the active rigs) would be a better approach. The incursus nerf means the following to me: You are reading "the incursus works" as "armor repping just needs more repping amount". It works because it can fit decent dps alongside decent tank, while maintaining decent speed. The proposed changes will ruin it. Furthermore, you agree that neut immune active tanking is OP, yet you refuse to: 1 - Do something about the ASB's neut immunity 2 - Restrict ASBs to one module per ship. Instead you inflict both required nerfs on the armor tanks. You are really not making it easy for people to like your ideas this time Fozzie. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you
ghost st The Scope Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:17:00 - [176] - Quote I think that the speed penalties for armor tanking are much more potent than the signature radius penalties for shield tanking. I mean if you look at turret tracking, speed (well Transvaal) is much more important than signature radius. You can have a high sig radius but be relatively unaffected if you can still move. But if you cant move, even a ludicrously small sig radius wont help you. Giving armored ships more speed is making armor more like shields imo, but really doesn't make up for the discrepancy. My solution would be to make signature radius play a bigger part in calculating hits and damage.
Iam Widdershins Project Nemesis 785	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:19:00 - [177] - Quote I approve of these excellent changes wholeheartedly. Raivi, you are a gentleman and a scholar. May you have many strong children. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
fukier RISE of LEGION 738	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:40:00 - [178] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes. At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane. Can't you just keep it the same and skip having a small AAR? =< see this is why the aar is a bad idea... you did not need much to make armor reps better (the fact that the incursus looses its new role is proof of this) all that was needed was fitting for amor reps to be looked at (just reduce the PG for regular reps) the disparity between active tank bonus and resistance bonus (i.e active tank bonus does not count to incoming RR... i can see if you added rig bonus and pills and boosters how this could seem op... but if you just made it ship bonus only it would be balanced) but instead of fixing the mods and ship bonus we are getting an aar and a new rig bonus that makes already heavy pg mods even heavier... i am going to quote blazing saddles when it comes to AAR At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Karmu Ivanostrov Ivanostrov Heavy Industries 31	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:44:00 - [179] - Quote Sounds great! Is it just me or Sacrilege will become even nastier now? You know, tackling you pretty much forever and now not burdened by rigs.
Andreus Ixiris Mixed Metaphor 1746	Posted - 2013.01.21 22:52:00 - [180] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Plates Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates (including 1600mm) and is separate from the stat change listed below. Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20% Fozzie, are you a woman IRL? Because I want you to have my babies. All of them. Forever. Mane 614

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: 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.