Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Inepsa1987
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
49
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:07:00 -
[211] - Quote
This change is terrible. I honestly don't understand why your poking around with this crap, it is literally not broken. Spaceship Pilot. |
Commando Jaxx
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
8
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:12:00 -
[212] - Quote
People* suck. These changes are ridiculous...
*CCP |
ZeusCommander
L F C
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:13:00 -
[213] - Quote
TinkerHell wrote:Does this nerf apply to the Vangel, Mimir and Cambion as well?
With them being Limited edition ships, and the value they command because of that, i think it would be wise to leave them as is. Its not like we see a fleet of 50 of them in one place where that extra 1% per level becomes an issue. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:18:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus. This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie.
The only good reason resist bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses is that they work in every conceivable situation, while local repair bonuses only help when there are no remote repairs present and the incoming damage is not enough to kill you in a couple of cycles of your repair modules.
It's obvious that fleet level RR mechanics need to be looked at, but even after that is eventually addressed, a 4% resist bonus will still completely overshadow the local repair bonus. I'm all for the low hanging fruit, but this is change is completely avoiding the real problem. |
Mirrodin
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:21:00 -
[215] - Quote
I don't own the ships, but I do think the AT ships should be left out of this change. Any overpowered-ness of them is wholly justified, imho. |
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:26:00 -
[216] - Quote
Hi Fozzie,
A long overdue change imo.
While this is most likely just the beginning of a resist re-evaluation it's a good start.
Please however don't get CSM involved in this. It's just not their role. We depend on you and your team to keep the game balanced on an even keel such that ships aren't the tipping point but skills and knowledge are. While their and our input should be considered, balance should out weigh public opinion no matter how vocal.
As you've mentioned this is just part of the problem however. Logistics and Spider tanking are another area that equally need to be reviewed for their effect in the current meta as well as Cap Trans mechanics and bonus's that make it all possible.
Please continue. We're all benefiting from it.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
862
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:30:00 -
[217] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus. This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie. It is not though, looking at a T2 LAR it reps 800 HP un modified, a 25% resistance increase will rep 1066EHP while a 37.5% increase to the rep will repair 1100 HP. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
224
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:31:00 -
[218] - Quote
Personally I'd rather that fights lasted longer, all things considered. |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:34:00 -
[219] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus. This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie. It is not though, looking at a T2 LAR it reps 800 HP un modified, a 25% resistance increase will rep 1066EHP while a 37.5% increase to the rep will repair 1100 HP.
I didn't say his number were wrong, I said that is not why resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
They're addressing the bad oral hygiene of a heart attack victim here; I'm sure it's a problem, but there are bigger issues to address... |
Admiral Rufus
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
28
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:34:00 -
[220] - Quote
Oh yet further destroy solo and small gang PvP by taking our ships that give us time to survive and gtfo of outnumbered engagements. Perhaps I should run a t3 booster to compensate because that obviously puts more money in ccp's pocket for the 2nd account that's required.... |
|
None ofthe Above
498
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:36:00 -
[221] - Quote
Get most of the way -- but not all the way through -- your balancing, and then make sweeping changes to all ships.
What could go wrong?
-1 Do not like. Vote, you apathetic bastards!-á -> http://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/vote/ CSM 8 Endorsements: Ali Aras, Malcanis, Mike Azaria, Psychotic Monk, Trebor Daehdoow, Ripard Teg |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:40:00 -
[222] - Quote
Who needed to say it directly? If a CCP rep puts out a post saying "We are going to nerf resists on a significant fraction of available hulls", don't you think that someone hearing that would say to themselves "Well, then highest end of resistance based combat has a power issue in general!". Especially when the OP describes the multitude of ways a resist bonus is better than other bonuses.
It's true, for many of the ships listed. As I said before, hull bonus changes are political in a way that other stats are not, because hull bonuses define a ship more than any other stat.
Also, I never said "Resists in general are the probem!". I said "If resists in general are the problem." You seem to be unable to discriminate between a conditional statement and an outright assertion. Given the large number of ships receiving this nerf, its easy to infer the idea.
Also, considering I'm a Rokh pilot, I know about the 3 invuln/midslot tradeoff, and I never run more than 2 because I don't run in big gangs. But in big gangs where you see lots of Rokhs, 3 invulns + LSE's is far more common because those BS's don't need to equip a Cap or shield booster. One of my problems with the proposed change is 5% off the top of these ships doesn't change much with that fit, but screws over every other viable fit quite a bit. That extra 5% allows for a great deal of fitting flexibility, and it will be sorely missed.
In short, CCP has said that massed Rokhs and Abaddons are too tough in those numbers, and has responded with this. It won't fix the problems in those fleets, and more aggressive nerfs will come in, further screwing small time players. So this isn't just about my personal drama over a single change. Indeed, the moment the Rokh and Abaddon changes came out, I said to myself "They are gonna do it to all resist bonuses eventually.". Lo and behold, not 3 days later this thread announces just that.
However, I recognize that the change I suggested will have adverse effects on the ships that I am not directly considering, but right now I cant propose different resist mods for different ship sizes, as Battleship class ships would be balanced out by a resist mod nerf, whereas smaller ships have a problem with it. In short: not enough granularity to solve the problem.
I am willing to accept that nerfing resist mods will be counterproductive in certain cases, but I also maintain that the proposed changes will not solve the problems CCP is trying to solve.
Note that nerfing the effect of the module may not make sense, splitting the mod into 3 sizes and changing the base cycle cost for each size certainly does. Invulns are way too cheap cap wise for what you get at this point on the large subcap end of ships.
As for math, check this out:
3x Invuln Rokh before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 * .739 * .829 = Base * .32163127 or ~.323 3x Invuln Rokh after CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 *.739 * .829 = Base * .34307336 0r ~.343
Thusly, you have a total change of about 2% for large fleet rokhs. This is easily absorbed by current loadouts for this role.
But lets look at my solo/small gang rokh, which has no LSE's, and only 1 invuln: 1x Invuln Rokh Before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 = Base * .525 1x Invuln Rokh After CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 = Base * .56
3.5%! Thats nearly a 90% marginal difference. This proposed change is almost twice as punishing on my preferred Rokh fit, which is not the targeted fit. Of course, the Rokh with 3 invulns has 15 to 20 more points of resist, but thats the benefit you get in exchange for those slots. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
theelusiveyoda
Hostile. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:45:00 -
[223] - Quote
I can only echo what others have said in previous posts, this change is terrible, you seriously cant apply this change to all those ships and except a good outcome as a whole load of those ships are going to become seriously underpowered compared to there counterparts.
Each Ship Should Be addressed By themselves not all together just because they all share the same bonus, i can see this as a even further Nerf to the tanking abilities of Super Carries.
Here is Some Raw Numbers for Example, im using Super Capitals as a example because it shows just how much of a change 1% per level effects the ehp:
All Examples Below Is Using T2 Modules with no other bonuses and Using Eve Fitting Tool for a guide for Simplicity:
The Aeon if fit using 1 Em Hardener, 1 Explosive Hardener, 1 Thermic, 1 Kinetic Harderner, 2 Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane, 1 dcu II, 1 armor layering membrane and T2 Trimarks goes from
From 16,367,975 EHP to 13,094,379 EHP
Wyvern Using 2 Em Ward Fields, 1 Thermic Field, 1 Kinetic Field, 1 Explosive Field, 2 Invul Fields, 3 Power Diagnostics, 1 Damgage Control, 3 T2 Large Core Defense Field Extenders
21,942,040 EHP To 20,720,870 EHP
Loosing more than 3 million ehp on a Aeon just speaks for itself.
I was actually going to buy a wyvern before but now i wont even bother. |
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
62
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:48:00 -
[224] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus. This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie. [[states that he disagrees]]The only good reason resist bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses is that they work in every conceivable situation, while local repair bonuses only help when there are no remote repairs present and the incoming damage is not enough to kill you in a couple of cycles of your repair modules. [[goes on to say the same things Fozzie originally said]]It's obvious that fleet level RR mechanics need to be looked at, but even after that is eventually addressed, a 4% resist bonus will still completely overshadow the local repair bonus. I'm all for the low hanging fruit, but this change is completely avoiding the real problem. [[implies that this wont help... then agrees that it will help, but not enough]] What did I just read? O_o |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:53:00 -
[225] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:Who needed to say it directly? If a CCP rep puts out a post saying "We are going to nerf resists on a significant fraction of available hulls", don't you think that someone hearing that would say to themselves "Well, then highest end of resistance based combat has a power issue in general!". Especially when the OP describes the multitude of ways a resist bonus is better than other bonuses.
It's true, for many of the ships listed. As I said before, hull bonus changes are political in a way that other stats are not, because hull bonuses define a ship more than any other stat.
Also, I never said "Resists in general are the probem!". I said "If resists in general are the problem." You seem to be unable to discriminate between a conditional statement and an outright assertion. Given the large number of ships receiving this nerf, its easy to infer the idea.
Also, considering I'm a Rokh pilot, I know about the 3 invuln/midslot tradeoff, and I never run more than 2 because I don't run in big gangs. But in big gangs where you see lots of Rokhs, 3 invulns + LSE's is far more common because those BS's don't need to equip a Cap or shield booster. One of my problems with the proposed change is 5% off the top of these ships doesn't change much with that fit, but screws over every other viable fit quite a bit. That extra 5% allows for a great deal of fitting flexibility, and it will be sorely missed.
In short, CCP has said that massed Rokhs and Abaddons are too tough in those numbers, and has responded with this. It won't fix the problems in those fleets, and more aggressive nerfs will come in, further screwing small time players. So this isn't just about my personal drama over a single change. Indeed, the moment the Rokh and Abaddon changes came out, I said to myself "They are gonna do it to all resist bonuses eventually.". Lo and behold, not 3 days later this thread announces just that.
However, I recognize that the change I suggested will have adverse effects on the ships that I am not directly considering, but right now I cant propose different resist mods for different ship sizes, as Battleship class ships would be balanced out by a resist mod nerf, whereas smaller ships have a problem with it. In short: not enough granularity to solve the problem.
I am willing to accept that nerfing resist mods will be counterproductive in certain cases, but I also maintain that the proposed changes will not solve the problems CCP is trying to solve.
Note that nerfing the effect of the module may not make sense, splitting the mod into 3 sizes and changing the base cycle cost for each size certainly does. Invulns are way too cheap cap wise for what you get at this point on the large subcap end of ships.
As for math, check this out:
3x Invuln Rokh before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 * .739 * .829 = Base * .32163127 or ~.323 3x Invuln Rokh after CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 *.739 * .829 = Base * .34307336 0r ~.343
Thusly, you have a total change of about 2% for large fleet rokhs. This is easily absorbed by current loadouts for this role.
But lets look at my solo/small gang rokh, which has no LSE's, and only 1 invuln: 1x Invuln Rokh Before CCP changes: Base * .75 * .7 = Base * .525 1x Invuln Rokh After CCP changes: Base * .8 * .7 = Base * .56
3.5%! Thats nearly a 90% marginal difference. This proposed change is almost twice as punishing on my preferred Rokh fit, which is not the targeted fit. Of course, the Rokh with 3 invulns has 15 to 20 more points of resist, but thats the benefit you get in exchange for those slots. Why do you think there is a particular prefered fit? This nerf affects remote, local and buffer tanks, which encompass most fits and uses. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
362
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 22:56:00 -
[226] - Quote
Wether the resits bonus on those ships are 20% or 25% doesn't mean a lot to me personally. However it does seem like a weird thing to nerf the local tanks when the real issue is Remote Reps?
Why don't you just balance out remote repairs instead? Obviously most T1 ships enjoy the logistics a lot, especially if they do not have a tank bonus - however even a few 1 logistics seems to rep unbonused ships fine.
Why not make an effort to limit the power of logistics just a bit? You can start by switching the RR range around so the small modules reach further and the large modules have a shorter range. At the same time you should try to reduce the resist bonus that exist on top of T2 ships with a racial resist boosts and maybe just give them a bigger buffer?
in addition I'd like to hear your opinions about amarr and caldari having the same amount of resist bonus? Afterall armor ships get more buffer for their biggest module (plates vs extender), have a better native resistance.
Furthermore I always thought a 25% shield resist bonus on a caldari ship was like a free T1 invuln field (not using cap ofcourse) and felt that was a bonus making sense since caldari ships don't usually have an abundance of medslots anyway. The Amarr ships however get the same bonus giving it way better resist than anything a T1 EANM can provide. and thats on top of more armor hitpoints than caldari got shield hitpoints and on top of a better base resistance.
Then ofcourse I know shield tankers have a lot of other differences. But I'd actually try to make a differentiated resist bonus - 3% or 4% for Amarr and 4% or 5% for Caldari. Or at least compensate the caldari ships a lot. Because without a proper resist bonus a ship like the Rokh is gonna be a boring and horrible underpowered ship with a marginal usefull optimal bonus and overpowered attack battlecruisers as an option...
Pinky |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:01:00 -
[227] - Quote
Wut? What makes you think there isn't a preferred fit, for a given role? If you are in a Rokhblob, you will fit 2 or 3 invulns, 2 or 3 LSE's and 1 or 2 Range mods for sniping in your mids. End of story. Are you so obtuse you can't see that this obviously punishes the ship in one role more than another? Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:04:00 -
[228] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:Wut? What makes you think there isn't a preferred fit, for a given role? If you are in a Rokhblob, you will fit 2 or 3 invulns, 2 or 3 LSE's and 1 or 2 Range mods for sniping in your mids. End of story. Are you so obtuse you can't see that this obviously punishes the ship in one role more than another? And they all got nerfed, but your statement was that you were nerfed more that the fit they were targeting. So I ask, what makes you think there was a particular fit they were targeting? |
Edward Pierce
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:05:00 -
[229] - Quote
Rented wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: In practice that means that for pure amount repped over time, a 25% resistance bonus is only 3% less powerful than a 37.5% rep bonus. This is one of the main reasons that resistance bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses.
This is so misguided it's scary coming from you Fozzie. [[states that he disagrees]]The only good reason resist bonuses completely overshadow local repair bonuses is that they work in every conceivable situation, while local repair bonuses only help when there are no remote repairs present and the incoming damage is not enough to kill you in a couple of cycles of your repair modules. [[goes on to say the same things Fozzie originally said]]It's obvious that fleet level RR mechanics need to be looked at, but even after that is eventually addressed, a 4% resist bonus will still completely overshadow the local repair bonus. I'm all for the low hanging fruit, but this change is completely avoiding the real problem. [[implies that this wont help... then agrees that it will help, but not enough]] What did I just read? O_o
Fozzie says that one of the main reasons a resist bonus "completely overshadows" a repair bonus is that there is only a 3% difference in their effect to local repairs; this (as I stated) is completely misguided. The only reason resist bonuses "completely overshadow" a repair bonus is that they are useful in every conceivable situation (as I stated).
Yes, nerfing the resist bonus will bring them closer in line (good on you Fozzie) but it will do nothing to address the fact that a resist bonus (yes even 4%) still "completely overshadows" a local repair bonus.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the change and the reason for the change, but this imbalance issue has been brought up in the Cruiser thread, the Armor tanking thread, the BC thread and the BS thread and all we've gotten back is that the local rep bonus will get some attention eventually.
Now we see a full thread addressing a minor nerf to the resist bonus? That there is what I don't agree with, and thinking that this will have any impact on the rep vs resist imbalance is completely misguided, so much so that I find it scary coming from Fozzie. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:08:00 -
[230] - Quote
Because only one Rokh fit/role is problematic game play wise. All other fits are lackluster compared to their competitors, and this change will make the situation worse. You don't see Rokh's pushing out other battleships of the Solo/Small gang ecology in the same way that you see Rokh's and Abaddons pushing out other competitors in the tankfleet + logi meta. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:11:00 -
[231] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:Because only one Rokh fit/role is problematic game play wise. All other fits are lackluster compared to their competitors, and this change will make the situation worse. You don't see Rokh's pushing out other battleships of the Solo/Small gang ecology in the same way that you see Rokh's and Abaddons pushing out other competitors in the blaapfleet + logi meta. If this were limited to the Rokh you might have had a point, but it isn't even limited to the BS class. This clearly can't be targeting blob fleet BS's, much less one fit of one particular BS, when it spans across all ships with the bonus in all classes. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:14:00 -
[232] - Quote
The nerf for the Rokh and Abaddon in particular was announced several days before the general resist nerf. In that announcement, Rokh and Abaddon hulls were singled out first. They may not be the prime target overall, but the timing of the announcements doesn't lend this notion credibility. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:16:00 -
[233] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote: Fozzie says that one of the main reasons a resist bonus "completely overshadows" a repair bonus is that there is only a 3% difference in their effect to local repairs; this (as I stated) is completely misguided. The only reason resist bonuses "completely overshadow" a repair bonus is that they are useful in every conceivable situation (as I stated).
Yes, nerfing the resist bonus will bring them closer in line (good on you Fozzie) but it will do nothing to address the fact that a resist bonus (yes even 4%) still "completely overshadows" a local repair bonus.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the change and the reason for the change, but this imbalance issue has been brought up in the Cruiser thread, the Armor tanking thread, the BC thread and the BS thread and all we've gotten back is that the local rep bonus will get some attention eventually.
Now we see a full thread addressing a minor nerf to the resist bonus? That there is what I don't agree with, and thinking that this will have any impact on the rep vs resist imbalance is completely misguided, so much so that I find it scary coming from Fozzie.
The bonus will undoubtedly remain more powerful but I don't believe the point was to have both bonuses be generally as desirable over all, but rather to allow an active tank bonus to be clearly better for active tank setups. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:19:00 -
[234] - Quote
Then why not increase the active tank bonus from 7.5% to 10%, like range bonuses? Oh, right, CCP hates tough tanks on ships. Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:21:00 -
[235] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:The nerf for the Rokh and Abaddon in particular was announced several days before the general resist nerf. In that announcement, Rokh and Abaddon hulls were singled out first. They may not be the prime target overall, but the timing of the announcements doesn't lend this notion credibility. Your concept of credibility here is pretty subjective and doesn't agree with the actual result of the proposed nerf. It's clear from their foreshadowing in the relevant BS threads that something was in store for this bonus. We had warning the moment we saw 4% resist bonused ships and CCP's descriptions in those threads but didn't know the scale yet. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
639
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:26:00 -
[236] - Quote
Van Mathias wrote:Then why not increase the active tank bonus from 7.5% to 10%, like range bonuses? Oh, right, CCP hates tough tanks on ships. It makes active tanking even more unviable on unbonused hulls, could further unbalance ASB's and does nothing to affect the buffer or power of incoming reps on resist bonused ships which they apparently think is too high given the versatility of the bonus. |
Van Mathias
Dead Space Collective
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:27:00 -
[237] - Quote
All credibility is subjective, that is the nature of the thing. Anyway, this looks like they are not going to change their minds until they implement this crap alongside Faction BC's and overturn the proverbial table on the current meta. Perhaps when much has been given up for little gain they will reconsider. Or maybe they will decide to nerf it some more and our resist bonus will be 2.5% a level! Exciting! Then Rokh's and Abaddon's won't be overused in large fleets because they won't be worth playing.
Wait, rep bonuses arent good enough to compete with resists, yet at the same time ancillary reps are overpowered? How do you reconcile those 2 positions?
Furthermore, why should using a hull for a strategy that the hull is not bonused for be made viable? Post your advanced battleship ideas here! |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:28:00 -
[238] - Quote
After Odyssey hits live....
Less ehp on ships, fights happen slightly closer --> More ships gets blown up More overpriced ships introduced that are somehow familiar On average all T1 ship prices will go up (reserved for more nerfs) More plexes purchased CCP happy |
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
41
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:30:00 -
[239] - Quote
Admiral Rufus wrote:Oh yet further destroy solo and small gang PvP by taking our ships that give us time to survive and gtfo of outnumbered engagements. Perhaps I should run a t3 booster to compensate because that obviously puts more money in ccp's pocket for the 2nd account that's required....
How in the **** is nerfing a predominately fleet oriented bonus nerfing small scale pvp? |
Hustomte
FutureTech Industrial Inc.
98
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 23:31:00 -
[240] - Quote
Aww, my Vengeance will no longer be able to tank 200 dps ...Signature... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |