| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 108 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
213
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 10:22:00 -
[2221] - Quote
I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P
Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings) |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction Whores in space
213
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 10:24:00 -
[2222] - Quote
Naso Aya wrote:Avald Midular wrote:
We'd be in the same problem as we were with the cap bonus, a "bonus" that just covers up the insane design of lasers to make the ship playable. So now the ships are taxed one ship bonus along with the PG fitting mod tax and laser fire cap booster tax. What summer intern at CCP slipped that past the design team?
So now here's the difficult question: What are lasers supposed to be a trade off of? Projectiles have multiple ups and downs, as do railguns. But lasers seem to be fairly well rounded, except for the cap issue. I think the cap issue was implemented that since the Amarr are good with everything, but not best at anything, there should be some glaring downside to such a versatile weapon. Well here we are: should there be a downside besides cap to lasers?
They already have it. Pulses are the worse tracking of short ranged weapons (although nto enough to be problematic at their typical engagement ranges . It goes Blasters > AC> Pulses. The beams have the shortest effective range of the long range weapons. But that at the bennefit of MASSIVELY higher damage output and better tracking. OF course the APOC cancels that. |

Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
129
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 11:37:00 -
[2223] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P
Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings)
At what range? Over 130km? And with less than 1k alpha. Yeah im happy now.
And you can fit Alphastorms with 40 mil Genolution implant set. |

John 1135
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 12:14:00 -
[2224] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:John 1135 wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:I obviously haven't looked at the Nav Harb on test server yet, but the Nav Omen is actually cap stable perma-running it's 4 lasers by themselves with nothing fitted to help it's cap, so they actually balanced it's cap properly.
(hint hint WTF Abaddon?) That's cos the Nomen had a cap reduction bonus on its lasers. Guess what's going away in Odyssey? (Take a look at the navy cruiser respec thread.) No, I did my tests with the NOmen on the test server that has the proposed changes to it (ie, that "lack" of hull boosts for cap). I see I mistook your point. Sorry.
I did note the words 'testserver', but coming as they did with 'Nav Harb' before the comma I expected you were referring to the Nav Omen as is, rather than on test. In part because the current version has refreshingly robust cap making it a pleasure to fly: your comment chimed with something I liked about the present ship so I thought you were referring to the present ship! FWIW I don't favour an inevitable comma before 'but' unless intended that everything after the comma contrasts with everything before.
I did fail to note the reference to 4 lasers, which was the evidence that both were on test.
Someone mentioned that Amarr are a 'newbies need not apply' race. I'd rather be a race that can fly its ships and become better with SP, than just about fly its ships after a load of SP. I'm facing next Amarr BS V and Large Lasers V and with those long trains ahead of me the Odyssey changes feel like a point where I can safely switch to another racial series.
|

Avald Midular
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
49
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 12:24:00 -
[2225] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P
Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings)
We'll assume you mean the T1 BS's. I'd like to see your math after the latest missile changes or even for a 1400 Maelstrom. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
58
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 15:22:00 -
[2226] - Quote
Avald Midular wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:I find strange how people still fail to realize that 7 tachyons on an APOC is more damage at range than any other battleship :P
Not saying the apoc does not deserve the PG to fit 8 tachyosn (EXACLTY.. that woudl means without MWD, so it would match same performance the tempest and maelstrom have with fittings) We'll assume you mean the T1 BS's. I'd like to see your math after the latest missile changes or even for a 1400 Maelstrom. We have to take care of all these roaming bands of 7 turret Apoc's this second! Oh wait there aren't any? Hmm...
This is a point I have been trying to make all of the "lasers are fine" people, from the he-who-shall-not-be-named dumbass who has been trolling this entire thread for weeks, down to Kagura here, the newest disciple of this misconception.
If lasers (specifically beams) were good, they'd be popular. If Caldari (specifically missiles) were good, they'd be popular.
They're not, so ergo, they aren't good. For whatever reason, be it travel time (which, you will note, is being fixed) or overly high cap use (which, you will note, we are being given a raspberry about), popularity in this game pretty much can be equated to power.
This game has been around so long, and math hammered out so well, that there are no dark horses lurking anywhere, for the enterprising gamer to find. Whatever it is, it's been tried by somebody. If it works, then it goes on the pile. If it doesn't, then it is discarded. And EVE gamers are an economical bunch too, what is used now, is used because it's positives outweigh it's negatives.
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
211
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 16:57:00 -
[2227] - Quote
And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. |

Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
212
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 17:44:00 -
[2228] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:So Fozzie. Have you and CCP Rise completely stopped taking feedback on the ship and module balance changes? Are you just going to release things as they are currently presented? We're just over a month from release and the last time you or he posted in any of the Amarr T1 BS or the LET threads was just a handful of posts by Rise completely discarding most of the feedback in the thread from the past 90 pages before his post. And those handful of posts were over a week after anything previously.
What's the point of making such threads then? You haven't really given us much indication that you're doing anything about them, that you're reading them anymore, or even that you care. We've been very busy with fanfest and myself with getting these devblogs out the door. We're definitely not done taking feedback on those balance changes. Well that's comforting. At what point before an expansion would you say changes are locked in? A week before? Two weeks? A few days for changes that don't require localization. Obviously the earlier the better though. It took James going to a completely unrelated thread to get us some feed back, but here is the responses so that we can all have something to see about it. |

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 18:10:00 -
[2229] - Quote
That's some vague responce. And note the "not required localization". Assuming they are dead set to push this crap on us, the ship descriptions WILL require localization, which means - the changes already locked in... most likely. |

Naso Aya
EVE University Ivy League
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 18:22:00 -
[2230] - Quote
He also got a response from Fozzie, not Rise. We don't know if Rise is under different constraints than Fozzie is in terms of time, ship balancing, etc. |

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
135
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 18:32:00 -
[2231] - Quote
Naso Aya wrote:He also got a response from Fozzie, not Rise. We don't know if Rise is under different constraints than Fozzie is in terms of time, ship balancing, etc. Constraints are not set per employee... |

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 20:23:00 -
[2232] - Quote
Attack battleships
I may post this in every thread.
Anybody feel these are a little lacking in their role.
The Mega may be an exception due to itGÇÖs opportunity for massive close range DPS but generally these feel like they should be on the move and yet seem to have cap problems doing so, this is not so much a problem for combat battleships that may end up in scram range or as fleet platforms where mobility is just one factor.
Attack frigates have a role bonus over combat frigates, this helps them maintain tackle and speed by reducing the cap draw of propulsion disruption modules. At battleship level such a bonus would make very little difference but at battleship level, no ship can run a Microwarpdrive for any significant period of time.
How would people feel about a cap reduction role bonus for propulsion modules for all Attack Battleships? Even something as strong as 50% or even 75% to enable these ships to stay on the move (as much as battleships can) without constant cap boosting.
|

Calathorn Virpio
Golden Construction Inc. Legacy Rising
247
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 20:38:00 -
[2233] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:Attack battleships
I may post this in every thread.
Anybody feel these are a little lacking in their role.
The Mega may be an exception due to itGÇÖs opportunity for massive close range DPS but generally these feel like they should be on the move and yet seem to have cap problems doing so, this is not so much a problem for combat battleships that may end up in scram range or as fleet platforms where mobility is just one factor.
Attack frigates have a role bonus over combat frigates, this helps them maintain tackle and speed by reducing the cap draw of propulsion disruption modules. At battleship level such a bonus would make very little difference but at battleship level, no ship can run a Microwarpdrive for any significant period of time.
How would people feel about a cap reduction role bonus for propulsion modules for all Attack Battleships? Even something as strong as 50% or even 75% to enable these ships to stay on the move (as much as battleships can) without constant cap boosting.
sounds nice. but the ammar already have problems with lazers, so i doubt CCP will take any notice of this BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX
more shenanigans plz
SEXY |

Avald Midular
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 20:41:00 -
[2234] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has.
I didn't even think about it from the Arty Abaddon angle but YESS, 100% agree!
Switching at least the Abaddon to 6 turrets but keeping same damage is now an even more obvious, low risk solution:
1) Helps out the PG fitting for those that don't like being forced into Scorch to avoid PG mods/rigs 2) Don't have to spend all the mid-slots on cap modules 3) Elegant "solution" to Arty Abaddon fleets which are having huge success 4) Brushes the cobwebs off Large Beams for anything but a Nightmare 5) Having 2 8 turret BS's for the one race with cap issues at every class is a cruel joke |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
64
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:13:00 -
[2235] - Quote
Quote:Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke
Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
136
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:14:00 -
[2236] - Quote
"Just drop turrets" doesn't make sense. Why forcing choices? I'm flying a 'geddon with six turrets, while it could field seven. Now, what? I have all I need for a specific task at hand, in a balance of offense and defense that suits my needs. If I need something else, I can do it in a different way. The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. ---áHarlan Ellison |

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
136
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:15:00 -
[2237] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use. No other race have oversized long-range turrets. The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. ---áHarlan Ellison |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
67
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:17:00 -
[2238] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use. No other race have oversized long-range turrets.
Ah, because Tachyons are totally in the "Capital Energy Weapons" category, right? I must have missed that the last time I sifted through the Marketplace in TQ.
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:18:00 -
[2239] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use. No other race have oversized long-range turrets.
especially ones you can't fit :) 'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place..... where is the TD missile change?-á ,...projectiles should use capacitor. |

Avald Midular
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:18:00 -
[2240] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use. No other race have oversized long-range turrets.
What does over-sized mean? They still say Large when I look into the info window. You could argue that they're unbalanced as large turrets and my response would be "where are all the abaddon tach fleets?" if they are. The fact that nobody even tries to fit them except Nightmares doesn't really scream OP, it screams there's a fitting issues since only a 4-turret NM tries to fit and fire them. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
67
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:19:00 -
[2241] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has.
I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with?
Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Avald Midular
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:23:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with? Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon.
They're fitting them for the tank which is why they don't just fit them on Mael's. |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
67
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:26:00 -
[2243] - Quote
Avald Midular wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with? Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon. They're fitting them for the tank which is why they don't just fit them on Mael's.
Ok, so? The issue remains that only once race's guns are so OP that they can be cross fit to anything and win. Winmatar.
They are fitting them for the absurd alpha potential of artillery. The tank is what is called the cherry on top.
Nerf the sundae, don't nerf the cherry! *
*Kaarous quotable moment brought to you by Quafe!
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Avald Midular
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:28:00 -
[2244] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Avald Midular wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with? Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon. They're fitting them for the tank which is why they don't just fit them on Mael's. Ok, so? The issue remains that only once race's guns are so OP that they can be cross fit to anything and win. Winmatar. They are fitting them for the absurd alpha potential of artillery. The tank is what is called the cherry on top. Nerf the sundae, don't nerf the cherry! * *Kaarous quotable moment brought to you by Quafe!
Oh I agree but our message gets muddled once we bring in "nerf other weapons" into the thread versus simply drawing comparisons to mega-beams and how broken they are. |

Gunther Nhilathok
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:29:00 -
[2245] - Quote
What the ****?! Are you just trying to get me to stop flying BS? The geddon was a great ship before. Why break it and turn it into a phoon? |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
69
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:33:00 -
[2246] - Quote
Avald Midular wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Avald Midular wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with? Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon. They're fitting them for the tank which is why they don't just fit them on Mael's. Ok, so? The issue remains that only once race's guns are so OP that they can be cross fit to anything and win. Winmatar. They are fitting them for the absurd alpha potential of artillery. The tank is what is called the cherry on top. Nerf the sundae, don't nerf the cherry! * *Kaarous quotable moment brought to you by Quafe! Oh I agree but our message gets muddled once we bring in "nerf other weapons" into the thread versus simply drawing comparisons to mega-beams and how broken they are.
Yeah, that was to say something weird, I have to admit. I should have put " marks around it. I have been considering how many days straight I can say "pimp comb" on these forums (relating to the current Apoc model) without getting a reprimand for it. Thus far, 2 straight.
But seriously, it's all part of the bigger issue. In my opinion, the strong tank (it's only strength) of the Abaddon truly is not the problem. It's a long manifesto however, to explain exactly what the issue is.
Also, mega beams suck, I entirely agree. At present the only reason to fit them at all is because Tachyons are entirely impossible to fit without gimping yourself worse than if you had just slapped on Megas in the first place.
Beams in general have a similar problem.
Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Naso Aya
EVE University Ivy League
46
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:45:00 -
[2247] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with? Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon.
Also, current Amarr is the only other race that can fit Artillery- only the Abaddon, and new Apoc, have enough powergrid for it. The tempest can fit them, but doesn't have as much Alpha as it only has 6 turret hardpoints.
Would we be willing to suffer a powergrid adjustment to the Abaddon, if it only had 6 hardpoints? I can't see CCP letting the PWG remain the same. Or rather, I can't see a reason to, if they've concluded that 102% over powergrid is "balanced". |

Avald Midular
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:50:00 -
[2248] - Quote
Naso Aya wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I just love this. If they have an issue with 1400s on an Abaddon, why not nerf the gun that is obviously good enough that *any* friggin race has the possibility of legitimately fitting them on their battleships and pwning face with? Like someone won't just fit 1400s on the next FoTM, once they chop the Abaddon. Also, current Amarr is the only other race that can fit Artillery- only the Abaddon, and new Apoc, have enough powergrid for it. The tempest can fit them, but doesn't have as much Alpha as it only has 6 turret hardpoints. Would we be willing to suffer a powergrid adjustment to the Abaddon, if it only had 6 hardpoints? I can't see CCP letting the PWG remain the same. Or rather, I can't see a reason to, if they've concluded that 102% over powergrid is "balanced".
Sure, but I wouldn't nerf it so that we're still the only race with weapons at 102% of our PG. Keep in mind the Tempest can be shield tanked requiring less PG overall.
|

Calathorn Virpio
Golden Construction Inc. Legacy Rising
248
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 23:25:00 -
[2249] - Quote
Avald Midular wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:And, honestly, I agree overall... if CCP wants to nerf the concept of 1400 Abaddons being so heavily popular, the resist nerf won't change a thing. We need to drop it from and 8 turret boat down to 6 or 7, and just make the damage bonus pick up the slack. And obviously, this would hugely address the idiotic cap issues it has. I didn't even think about it from the Arty Abaddon angle but YESS, 100% agree! Switching at least the Abaddon to 6 turrets but keeping same damage is now an even more obvious, low risk solution: 1) Helps out the PG fitting for those that don't like being forced into Scorch to avoid PG mods/rigs 2) Don't have to spend all the mid-slots on cap modules 3) Elegant "solution" to Arty Abaddon fleets which are having huge success 4) Brushes the cobwebs off Large Beams for anything but a Nightmare 5) Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke
aren't those the only ones CCP likes? BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX
more shenanigans plz
SEXY |

Calathorn Virpio
Golden Construction Inc. Legacy Rising
248
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 23:26:00 -
[2250] - Quote
Tonto Auri wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:Having 2 8 turret BS's for the race with triple the cap cost just to fire your weapons and absurdly more PG to fit them is a cruel joke Moreso when other race's Battleships are actively having turrets removed, and their damage bonuses buffed to compensate, specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap use. No other race have oversized long-range turrets.
ever fly the rokh with 425's? BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX
more shenanigans plz
SEXY |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 108 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |