Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
275
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
I don't even get why a stationary talos is allowed to hit a talwar. It should be missing at all ranges.
Before you take into account the fact that it for some reason goes about as fast/faster, and can therefore zero the transversal and just instakill it, regardless of range. |

Allus Nova
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:07:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Good morning space adventurers! IF YOU WANT TO CRITICIZE THIS PROPOSAL PLEASE READ THE EXPLANATION BELOW FIRST <3 Okay so I'm going to give you the numbers first, then do some text walling below to try and explain why we arrived where we did. Medium Rails (all sizes and metas):+15% Rate of Fire +15% Damage Multiplier -15% Tracking Speed Medium Beams:+25% Damage Multiplier -10% Tracking Speed Medium Artillery:+10% Rate of Fire -5% Tracking So the basic idea is that we're increasing damage by quite a lot for all medium long range turrets, while also lowering their tracking a little bit. From a high level, the goal here is to make long range weapons valuable enough that people are able to use them for both PVP and PVE without being laughed at. This is hard to accomplish without stepping heavily on the toes of either large weapons or short-range medium weapons. We felt that a large damage increase was absolutely necessary for there to be any chance of seeing increased use, but the higher damage goes the more pressure gets put on other weapon systems. By making tracking speed a bit worse we preserve a lot of the advantage that medium short-range guns bring, while also making medium long-range guns a great choice verse large guns in many situations. To understand why that last part is true, its VERY important that you understand how tracking works in EVE. I want to use an example here to help illustrate: The tracking speed on a standard Neutron Blaster Talos with Null loaded is .0794 The tracking speed on a new 250mm Railgun Deimos with Antimatter loaded will be .0304 It looks like the Talos tracks 3x as well as the Deimos. In reality, because of the role Signature Resolution plays, the Deimos will actually track moving targets about 19% better than the Null Talos. A real tracking number that combines tracking speed and resolution would look like this: Real tracking on standard Neutron Blaster Talos with Null loaded is .0001985 Real tracking on a new 250mm Railgun Deimos with Antimatter loaded is .0002432 If you want to make this kind of comparison for other ships and situations, divide tracking speed by the signature resolution of the gun and compare the resulting numbers. If you want to see an awesome in-depth explanation for tracking, I recommend reading THIS BLOG by Azual Skoll. One of the discussions we had with the CSM on this topic (there were a lot) revolved around a situation where you get to choose which ship to bring to a fight where you will be shooting at Talwars. Do you want a new medium long-range gun ship, or an Attack BC with large short-range guns. So I made a DPS graph here showing three fits: a 200mm Rail Thorax, a 250mm Rail Deimos, and a Neutron Talos, all of which have 2 tracking enhancers fit. The situation shown would be if the Talwar has MWD on and is moving at full speed at an angle of 60 degrees (hopefully fairly average, though it will vary a lot). You can see what that looks like here: DAMAGE GRAPHThere are of course a lot of other reasons to bring medium long-range ships over large like price, speed, resilience, and the option to shoot to much longer ranges. Overall we are still a tad worried about power creep here, but hopefully this will put medium guns in a healthy place in relation to their competition. Be sure to check out the HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER REBALANCE as well as many of those ships are affected by this change and vice versa As always, looking forward to feedback. CCP Rise
CCP Rise,
How do you justify the changes to Heavy Missiles after this? The reason behind the taking of HML's and throwing them into the junk bin was that they were out of line with other long range weapons. With these improvements of other long range turret weapons...HML's are now the red headed step child of attack systems. Will CCP re-assess it's nerf of HML's? They have become non-viable for both PvP and PvE due to poor dps, and the loss of a huge chunk of their range.
-Nova |

Miles Winter
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
If I may add some input here as a completely new player with my current experience so far:
- I decided to focus on lasers and Amarr ships due to how they look - I have been routinely told by other players whom I've asked, that beam lasers are almost completely useless and pulse lasers are only good when you get to T2 and can fit scorch. - I can't really fit much of anything on anything. Even the most basic frigate fits have required 7+ days of training, I know that's peanuts to bittervets, but to a new player, that is staggering.
I don't know how any of this would impact or influence any decisions around these forthcoming changes to long-range support weapons, but it felt like something useful to say and is related in respect to the way the different weapon systems and tech levels influence each other.
Personally, I would prefer T1 weapons to be the all-around systems, T2 to be specialized. That would make new characters a fair bit more viable in combat, while older players are better in specific niches.
Unfortunately, I cannot see any sweeping and drastic changes in regards happening, both because people are used to the current meta and because of the immense impact that would occur economically within the game. |

iyammarrok
Disconnected. Choke Point
113
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:09:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ok.. this may seem like a strange question but still...
You have compared the tracking and dps on a Talos, against that of a Thorax and Deimos(t)....
The Talos being designed for large hybrids means, at least as far as I can tell, that it should have higher DPS numbers but lower tracking, whether it fits blasters or rails.
looking at your DPS graph showing what things will be like after this change, i can't help but notice that the Talos does not reach anywhere near the dps potential of either the t1 or t2 cruiser.
So, post change, a railfit cruiser will track better and do more dps than a large blaster fit battlecruiser? Seems a little odd. Not indicative of corporate policy unless otherwise stated. |

BiggestT
Serenity. CORP. Diggers Inc.
62
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:11:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Morel Nova wrote:Swap the arty RoF buff to a 20% damage bonus instead. Artillery is for alpha strikes, this risks making all weapon systems a bit too similar which is boring. Its very intentional that it gets ROF and not damage. Alpha on Arty is already plenty high, making arty Hurricanes and Muninns both viable before the changes. We wanted to make sure the dps kept up with rails and beams somewhat without overbuffing alpha which is working fine currently.
Ahh the changes make sense now.
Cheers, finally I can use med rails and not feel like less of a man.
Edit: Any plans to review heavy missiles now? Seems like they will be pretty sub-optimal after this... |

Minimax Zed
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Morel Nova wrote:Swap the arty RoF buff to a 20% damage bonus instead. Artillery is for alpha strikes, this risks making all weapon systems a bit too similar which is boring. Its very intentional that it gets ROF and not damage. Alpha on Arty is already plenty high, making arty Hurricanes and Muninns both viable before the changes. We wanted to make sure the dps kept up with rails and beams somewhat without overbuffing alpha which is working fine currently.
Arty Hurricanes aren't really viable, though, and haven't been since Retribution.
I'm not talking no-tank instacanes; those are a specialized niche use.
The problem is powergrid. Even with 100% perfect fitting skills, and an RCU II in one of your lowslots, fitting a shield arty-cane still requires a 1% grid implant. This isn't true for any of the other combat BCs with their beefiest racial medium long-range weaponry -- without an RCU II, some of them wind up 2-5% over on grid, but absolutely none of them wind up a whopping 16% over on grid.
Hurricane powergrid was nerfed too hard |

Kesi Raae
Anatidae Rising
10
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Adwokat Diabla wrote:at first I was super excited about this and was gonna buy some eagles. but then i saw the tracking nerf to rails and now...
I know you think that it tracking better then a talos with null is cool, but in reality its kinda ****** vs frigs unless they're ******** and coming at you in a staight line. m. rails already track the 2nd worst of medium guns, and only just slightly better then arties, so why even bother when you can just use the other, better tracking guns. Please, just remove the tracking nerf on medium rals, and give them the buff that they so desperately need. Literally nobody uses medium rails right now and if it turns out that its over-powered then you can always nerf it, but I really do not think that this tracking nerf is going to help.
Wahh, why can't I brawl down this frigate with my long range medium guns abloobloo
|

Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
159
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:14:00 -
[38] - Quote
SO excited the medium long range guns got some love.
One request, less cap use and fitting on the beams and rails please, it's a big big problem, try fitting a shield rail thorax and not capping yourself out with just the guns.
Mainly positive feedback from me in both threads instead of threatening you with bodily harm...you're making inroads son. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10863
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kesi Raae wrote:Adwokat Diabla wrote:at first I was super excited about this and was gonna buy some eagles. but then i saw the tracking nerf to rails and now...
I know you think that it tracking better then a talos with null is cool, but in reality its kinda ****** vs frigs unless they're ******** and coming at you in a staight line. m. rails already track the 2nd worst of medium guns, and only just slightly better then arties, so why even bother when you can just use the other, better tracking guns. Please, just remove the tracking nerf on medium rals, and give them the buff that they so desperately need. Literally nobody uses medium rails right now and if it turns out that its over-powered then you can always nerf it, but I really do not think that this tracking nerf is going to help. Wahh, why can't I brawl down this frigate with my long range medium guns abloobloo
Yes frigates being brawled down wwith medium long range guns was definitely a big problem than needed fixing
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10863
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:21:00 -
[40] - Quote
iyammarrok wrote:Ok.. this may seem like a strange question but still...
You have compared the tracking and dps on a Talos, against that of a Thorax and Deimos(t)....
The Talos being designed for large hybrids means, at least as far as I can tell, that it should have higher DPS numbers but lower tracking, whether it fits blasters or rails.
looking at your DPS graph showing what things will be like after this change, i can't help but notice that the Talos does not reach anywhere near the dps potential of either the t1 or t2 cruiser.
So, post change, a railfit cruiser will track better and do more dps than a large blaster fit battlecruiser? Seems a little odd.
Look at the sig radius and speed of the target that its shooting at.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
210
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:22:00 -
[41] - Quote
Capacitor usage of beams is still ****, even a 25% damage bonus is not going to make people use them instead of scorch heavy pulse or tachyon oracles. |

Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Capacitor usage of beams is still ****, even a 25% damage bonus is not going to make people use them instead of scorch heavy pulse or tachyon oracles.
Supporting this.
I know med rails were shafted enough to deserve the massive DPS buff they got, but you can at least toss in the same 20% cap use reduction for med Beams like you did with the large ones, especially with the tracking hit they get. |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1121
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:32:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Good morning space adventurers! IF YOU WANT TO CRITICIZE THIS PROPOSAL PLEASE READ THE EXPLANATION BELOW FIRST <3 Okay so I'm going to give you the numbers first, then do some text walling below to try and explain why we arrived where we did. Medium Rails (all sizes and metas):+15% Rate of Fire +15% Damage Multiplier -15% Tracking Speed Medium Beams:+25% Damage Multiplier -10% Tracking Speed Medium Artillery:+10% Rate of Fire -5% Tracking So the basic idea is that we're increasing damage by quite a lot for all medium long range turrets, while also lowering their tracking a little bit. From a high level, the goal here is to make long range weapons valuable enough that people are able to use them for both PVP and PVE without being laughed at. This is hard to accomplish without stepping heavily on the toes of either large weapons or short-range medium weapons. We felt that a large damage increase was absolutely necessary for there to be any chance of seeing increased use, but the higher damage goes the more pressure gets put on other weapon systems. By making tracking speed a bit worse we preserve a lot of the advantage that medium short-range guns bring, while also making medium long-range guns a great choice verse large guns in many situations. To understand why that last part is true, its VERY important that you understand how tracking works in EVE. I want to use an example here to help illustrate: The tracking speed on a standard Neutron Blaster Talos with Null loaded is .0794 The tracking speed on a new 250mm Railgun Deimos with Antimatter loaded will be .0304 It looks like the Talos tracks 3x as well as the Deimos. In reality, because of the role Signature Resolution plays, the Deimos will actually track moving targets about 19% better than the Null Talos. A real tracking number that combines tracking speed and resolution would look like this: Real tracking on standard Neutron Blaster Talos with Null loaded is .0001985 Real tracking on a new 250mm Railgun Deimos with Antimatter loaded is .0002432 If you want to make this kind of comparison for other ships and situations, divide tracking speed by the signature resolution of the gun and compare the resulting numbers. If you want to see an awesome in-depth explanation for tracking, I recommend reading THIS BLOG by Azual Skoll. One of the discussions we had with the CSM on this topic (there were a lot) revolved around a situation where you get to choose which ship to bring to a fight where you will be shooting at Talwars. Do you want a new medium long-range gun ship, or an Attack BC with large short-range guns. So I made a DPS graph here showing three fits: a 200mm Rail Thorax, a 250mm Rail Deimos, and a Neutron Talos, all of which have 2 tracking enhancers fit. The situation shown would be if the Talwar has MWD on and is moving at full speed at an angle of 60 degrees (hopefully fairly average, though it will vary a lot). You can see what that looks like here: DAMAGE GRAPHThere are of course a lot of other reasons to bring medium long-range ships over large like price, speed, resilience, and the option to shoot to much longer ranges. Overall we are still a tad worried about power creep here, but hopefully this will put medium guns in a healthy place in relation to their competition. Be sure to check out the HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER REBALANCE as well as many of those ships are affected by this change and vice versa As always, looking forward to feedback. CCP Rise
1. It still pretty much impossible to fit beams/rails and an armor tank. This upsets me.. You basically end up getting worse numbers in EVERYTHING tank/dps/speed. 2. This entire thing is an excersize in powercreep. You should nerf the talos and t2 ammo properly rather than majorly buffing everything else IMO. 3. Beams still have the problem that if you fit them on anything that ship won't have any fitting for anything else (You can't shield tank an omen, it doesn't have the slots for it) So you can't fit the cap booster you have to have (Because otherwise you just instantly cap out endlessly) BYDI recruitment closed-ish |

Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
99
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:40:00 -
[44] - Quote
I've done some pretty heavy mathematical investigation into tracking- why are sig resolution and tracking different stats on guns, apart for historical reasons? They're part of the exact same thing, it's just one number arbitrarily split into two on gun stats.
All it does is confuse the issue, as evidenced by massive blog posts about people not understanding and trying to educate people that leave some probably just as confused when they started, and the bit where Rise had to come up with a 'A real tracking number that combines tracking speed and resolution'. It's just plain silly that the 'real' tracking number isn't just a singular tracking number on any and all guns.
|

Arline Kley
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
181
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
Quote:Garviel Tarrant]TL:DR The fittings on these weapons (And cap use) is too high to use with armor tanks.. I want to armor tank my ******* amarr ships >_<
Welcome to my world - these are further changes that are going to be rushed out the door, leading to issues further down the line. Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10864
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:46:00 -
[46] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:Quote:Garviel Tarrant]TL:DR The fittings on these weapons (And cap use) is too high to use with armor tanks.. I want to armor tank my ******* amarr ships >_< Welcome to my world - these are further changes that are going to be rushed out the door, leading to issues further down the line.
Bear in mind that these are initial proposals. If you want to suggest amendments, then doing so with detailed data, and considered, reasonable arguments is the way forward.
1 Kings 12:11
|

BAJRAN BALI
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc. Monkeys with Guns.
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
Aww crap! Well there goes arti tracking. |

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1098
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:47:00 -
[48] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:It's a general consensus that Medium Rails need a buff, but giving them a 15% bonus to both RoF and damage seems a bit drastic to me - they don't suck that bad (and Rail Proteus or Astarte still works very well in killing rats that are weak to Kin/Thermal).
You don't think that CCP will give one hand and take away with the other? The upcoming T3 Apocalypse will nerf any advantages of the Proteus back into the stone age.
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10864
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:50:00 -
[49] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: 2. This entire thing is an excersize in powercreep. You should nerf the talos and t2 ammo properly rather than majorly buffing everything else IMO.
Medium beams and rails were essentially unused even before tier3 BCs were introduced. They haven't been buffed because of powercreep, but because they're just terrible.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
521
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Those changes look good on paper to me.
Like several people have said, looking at T2 ammo might be cool too. -75% range on Javelin always seems like a killer - you do get the tracking bonus with it but I seem to remember that the in-space chance of hitting something at that range even with the bonus was slim and none. Looks like the yellow quafe shirt is more popular than I thought ;) |

Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
419
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 13:57:00 -
[51] - Quote
ah
this change is so uncreative and just seems cheap lets just boost dmg along the whole range , that should fix them ... nope , it only fixes one thing (hopefully) but imho these weapons have other problems too ,what should be adressed also
other problems: size of guns arent balanced lets compare dual 150mm , 200mm ,250mm t2 railguns:
----------------- D150 --- 200 --- 250 optimal(km) 14,4 21,6 28,8 falloff (km) 6 10 12 dmgx 1,98 2,64 3,63 rof(s) 3,9 4,88 6,38 tracking 0,0441 0,0294 0,02415 cpu 33 37 42 pg 74 166 208
while 250mm is the standard and if you short on fitting and want to go tankier you can fit the 200mm guns, the dual 150mm is nearly useless cause its alpha and optimal is so far behind the other two half the optimal of the 250mm and 12% less dps overweights the less fitting need and better tracking the better tracking only to counter its horribly low optimal as you have to fight much closer to get nearly same dps as from the what should be done is to increase its optimal and fitting need, even the 200mm should have better optimal
just compare them to arties where both 720mm and 650mm are widely uses as both are well balanced vs eachother
650mm 19,32+17,5km opt+falloff 720mm 24+17,5km opt+falloff the loss off range due to downgrading the gun to 650mm from 720mm is way smaller than for rails 20% just optimal
where downgrading to 200mm from 250mm you loose 25% optimal and on top of that 17% falloff and if you downgrade to dual150mm you loose 50% both falloff and optimal :O yeah there are similar gun for arties as the dual 150mm but still the loss in just over the top
or vs beams focused mediumb 21+6km opt+falloff heavy beam 24+8km opt+falloff just 12,5% less optimal if you downgrade and 25% less falloff these seems well balanced vs eachother too just like arties
and for the quad light beam laser that thing is as crap as the dual150mm rail
ammos the long range ammos loose too much dmg for their better range, thats why nearly nobody uses longer range ammo for medium long range guns the drop of dps and alpha makes them unviable
I think longer range ammos should get better dmg, to lessen the too steep drop of dps, this shouldnt make these weapons op , just make them usable with longer range ammo, nobody use t1 long range ammo in short range weapons anyway , this wouldnt change a thing for short range weapons
ps: oh and lower the cap use ,as rof increases cap/s increases too , which should be the case and the tracking hit maybe too much med rails already had problem hitting smaller stuffs |

Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
333
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:10:00 -
[52] - Quote
This initial pass looks promising, but can explain what the net benefit is going to end up being? I mean, medium rails were in a sorry state, to be sure, but if you're going to buff all the medium long-range weapons systems, is the end-of-the-day picture going to look essentially the same as it did before?
Also, why didn't you just buff rails to be in-line with the "best" (overall (usage, stats, etc., currently, as it stands on TQ now) medium long-range weapon on TQ now instead of power creep? I also don't understand the nerf to tracking, since medium long range weapons already have terrible tracking. The final picture should have been where T3 BCs have an absolute damage advantage but *significantly* worse tracking over medium long-range. It seems as though large short range, long-range ammo turrets will still have a damage advantage and only a slightly worse tracking, which probably won't really be affected by these buffs.
I'd like to remain optimistic, and I was really excited about the announcement of these changes, but I don't know if this pass accomplishes the goals; it more feels like excess power creep and is just going to end up in the same position it is now on TQ more-or-less. As soon as you step onto the battlefield, you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |

Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:11:00 -
[53] - Quote
Don't think it would hurt to give Arty a 15% RoF bonus, their dps will still be quite abit lower than Beam and Rails.
Give beams a little reduction in cap use aswell, 10-15 maybe even 20% |

Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Rise or Malcanis,
What's the reasoning in not changing Heavy Missiles along with everything else? Weren't they originally nerfed because they didn't line up with the other long range weapon types and now they're being left behind in changes? |

Photon Ceray
Caesar Lile Directorate
105
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
It looks like a very interesting change that might make long range medium guns viable indeed.
Just please look at T2 ammo as well. make some viable variations, maybe 3-4 types rather than 2. |

Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
240
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:14:00 -
[56] - Quote
Let's go over the rails checklist.
Shield ships: Tank - check, Speed - check, Range - check, Tracking - check, DPS - check. Done ship it!
Armor ships: Tank - not if you want to fit the guns, Speed - not if you want a tank, Range - checkish, Tracking - not if you want range, DPS - not if you want that tank, but then again if you wanted a tank you can't fit the guns. Ship it?
When are we going to see Armor 2.0?
|

Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:15:00 -
[57] - Quote
I am a little concerned about the ROF change to rails without a cap usage reduction to go with it Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1125
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: 2. This entire thing is an excersize in powercreep. You should nerf the talos and t2 ammo properly rather than majorly buffing everything else IMO.
Medium beams and rails were essentially unused even before tier3 BCs were introduced. They haven't been buffed because of powercreep, but because they're just terrible.
Note i also said t2 ammo. T2 sr ammo is quite silly at times.
And i said the fittings/cap use were ****** up. Other then that they were alright.
I'm not saying they couldn't have used a dps buff, i would just rather have seen a slight buff and a slight nerf rather than just a massive buff. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10868
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:34:00 -
[59] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:Capacitor usage of beams is still ****, even a 25% damage bonus is not going to make people use them instead of scorch heavy pulse or tachyon oracles.
A 25% damage buff is equivalent to a 20% improvement in their cap efficiency. I dunno but that seems like a pretty huge improvement.
1 Kings 12:11
|

Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10868
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 14:35:00 -
[60] - Quote
Akimo Heth wrote:CCP Rise or Malcanis,
What's the reasoning in not changing Heavy Missiles along with everything else? Weren't they originally nerfed because they didn't line up with the other long range weapon types and now they're being left behind in changes?
Ironic, isn't it?
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |