Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Ciccina Porcella
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:04:00 -
[601] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. HALLELUJAHHHH
Can you make them go on killmails too now, when they aid? Let's kick the "soloers" in the balls!! |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:12:00 -
[602] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:[quote=CCP Fozzie][quote=Grarr Dexx] Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. snip Oh and anyway we could have some sort of icon, or ship effect to show they are reciving bosts? I hate when I see a lone frig and try to engadge only to find they are linked AFTER they point me at 30kms. THat way we can make more informed decisions if we want to fight the linked solo pown mobile. it also might discorage so many off grid bosting alts if their "lol solo" main isent getting any fights because people say F-your-links. This wouldnt matter. Most people with alts boosting a main dont turn on the link(s) until its party time anyway. So you wouldnt have visual notification until you were already engaged anyway. Also it seems that ganglinks were always meant to be an ace up your sleeve anyway. It's a tactical luxury, the tactical advantage/ element of surprise is gone if everyone has a giant neon sign pointing on everyone that's receiving a particular booster. And besides, if they kept on balancing the game around making it easier for the weakest players, then there would be no strategy left other then piling in as many numbers as possible, which would be a terrible game.
You know what your right, they are a tactical luxury... kinda liek super caps, good thing those didnt get out of hand either. |
Yankunytjatjara
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
76
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:17:00 -
[603] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Grarr Dexx wrote:Quote:We're planning to make active gang links provide a 60 second weapons timer to their owner, so that you can't just sit on a station or gate and boost all day long. I would call this a nerf to gangs that have the balls to actually bring their links on grid with them (usually in the form of a damnation). If a side gets overblobbed, all the bigger side will have to do to force a gang to drop all links in order to de-aggro is point up the link ship, further disadvantaging the losing side. Is this really what you want to do? It's just going to further promote off grid boosting, because a weapons timer doesn't really affect something hovering in a safespot. EDIT: Is it not possible to give it the same treatment as remote repair/transfer/shield? Inherit the timers from agressed people, not make new ones. The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Are they also gaining the suspect flag? I hope so, if not, in empire space the change is sadly going to be pointless as you can't do anything about a neutral link ship anyways.
The best would indeed be to consider them remote reppers, would you care to check if the brain in a box project could take care of these aggression mechanics? My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors |
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
85
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:29:00 -
[604] - Quote
Sentient Blade wrote:A 60 seconds weapon timer seems like an awful solution to me.
If you're in a fight you don't turn off your hardeners 60 seconds before you jump a gate. Agreed, if you're in trouble and need to disengage the last thing you need is being forced to also turn off the links keeping you alive, or sacrifice your command ships. |
StevieTopSiders
Adversity. Rote Kapelle
108
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:32:00 -
[605] - Quote
All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
As for the COMMAND PROCESSOR, set a hard limit of 3 links on each ship (Warfare Sub T3's included), and then suddenly you still have to pick and choose what links you want and you can fly them on grid with reasonably tanked fits (both armor and shield).
Make on-grid boosters viable combat ships, and they will be flown on grid. The new Eos is going to rock, and once my CS alt gets drones trained up, I will be flying one for sure. I'll get instant link activation (instead of warping to safespot in my off-grid Loki), I'll have a strong tank with T2 resists, and I'll be able to ~command~ from the field as well as apply damage and utilize my utility mid-slots. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3246
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:37:00 -
[606] - Quote
Very good points about the weapons timer, it should probably be a capsuleer log off timer instead.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4190
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:40:00 -
[607] - Quote
Gang links should function as remote assisting someone too. So if someone decides to use neutral alts, they become a valid target as well for the enemies of those using them. . |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:51:00 -
[608] - Quote
StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship?
Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1048
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:53:00 -
[609] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok update time!
Most of your updates are decent. Could you please take a moment to address why off grid gang links are way more potent than pirate implant sets and drugs? Both of these later items are at real risk of not only being destroyed, but also providing drawbacks to your ship. Meanwhile, links are boosting every ship, with far more potency, from historically, a "safe" place. P.S. EXCELLENT change with by giving boosters a weapons timer!!!!! I'm ok with another character being a bigger deal than an implant or a pill.
This reply would make sense if the extra character was actually in the battle. However, since the extra character won't be in the battle you might as well admit paying Ccp real money is going to give you much better in game benifits than isk.
if you really wanted to balance anything links would be nerfed to the ground until they had to be on grid. To the extent these are intended to be the same bonuses you get when they are forced on grid, you are basically admitting links are out of balance even with these changes. Why not balance them in light of the reality that ccp claims it lacks the technical knowhow to force them on grid? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:20:00 -
[610] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship? Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed.
Yes it can be neuted out, whether the neuter will be alive after having 5 heavy tracking enhanced drones launched at it is another. |
|
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:33:00 -
[611] - Quote
I still can't get why you leave damnation as the only CS with decent tank. Active tank is useless in 200 vs 200 fight FYI. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1103
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:43:00 -
[612] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:The inherited timer thing would indeed be ideal, but is also not feasible for performance reasons. There are definitely areas of collateral damage caused by a change like that one, but I think the benefits would outweigh the problems.
Like for instance TiDi or lag, the dam thing turn off and by the time it gets active half of your fleet has been crushed...
This is a bad solution against ogb, the only viable solution against ogb is to scrap it or flush it down the toilets. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Aplier Shivra
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:58:00 -
[613] - Quote
Make sure to include in warfare links description that they are affected by normal stacking penalties (the resist ones, anyways) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1308
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:28:00 -
[614] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:StevieTopSiders wrote:All the anal frustration in this thread.
Weapons timer on links is stupid, because it nerfs on-grid CS. If you're barely holding reps against an enemy fleet and want to jump out, then why would you turn off the extra-resistances and more effective reps?
Losing a fight might mean you lose a ship? Also, implying your eos won't be neuted out and killed instantly. I do agree that command processors are dumb though and should just be removed. Yes it can be neuted out, whether the neuter will be alive after having 5 heavy tracking enhanced drones launched at it is another.
You seem to be suggesting that you will be flying your command ship in a situation where your opponent doesn't have logi.
Nothing wrong with that but thats generally not their main role.
Also the whole grarr "This is a nerf to on grid links because the 60 second times will make me lose my ship"
Yes, your ******* ship is part of the ******* fight. Its giving bonuses to every god damn ******* ship on the field. Suggesting that links giving you a timer is a nerf to small gangs is like saying logi's getting a timer is a nerf to small gangs.
Its ******* stupid. If you engage in combat you might lose ships, thats generally how pvp is supposed to ******* work.
CCP, you censor too much. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:46:00 -
[615] - Quote
Just use a proper vocabulary...
Anyway, give Logis 60sec weapon timer too!! |
mine mi
Boinas Rojas Gentlemen's Agreement
31
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 22:00:00 -
[616] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Unhappy with off grid boosting? I have a solution!
Nerf all the links people use, then nerf the ships that are used to boost off grid, then nerf the only workable on grid command ship.
Nerf the links, ok, nerf ogb's, go ahead. But the rational behind making one of the only 2 used on grid command ships less tanky is beyond me.
The solution of command ships is NOT to lower them all to the lowest common denominator, which is frankly useless.
A command ship should be commanding, a platform for tank, links, and survivability. Some quasi dps, mediocre tank, mediocre boosts role is a hell of a lot like a Swiss army knife. That is to say, flimsy and unusable, trying to do too many things at one.
You know when the last time I saw an Astarte was? 3 years ago, a corpy used one to beltrat in fountain.
I'll tell you when I see an absolution or an eos. At any time, in any place outside the AT.
Got to say, I love most of your rebalanced. HAC's, t1 everything, indies, all look excellent and well thought out. This one left me checking to make sure it was not April in August.
The man have a point, create a capital rig, with X bonus to strength to Warfare links. Then, in really big fleet, commanders can bring supercapitals as command ships. |
Aloe Cloveris
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:11:00 -
[617] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting.
As much as I want actively running link ships to be probeable, sig bloom is a bit heavy handed. If a link T3 actually chooses to get into the thick of the fighting it doesn't deserve to have a battleship sized sig (or dreadnaught sized sig should he use his mwd). A more sensible approach might be a 20% reduction in sensor strength for each warfare link active, which would help to cancel out the benefits of Dissolution Sequencer subs and make them easier and easier to probe the more links they actively run. A link T3 isn't going to be a crucial dps platform and if it's fighting and gets jammed because of its reduced sensor strength (why even bother jamming it, really?), it's not as life-threatening as being as hard to track/torp into oblivion as a fixed structure.
Dedicated Command Ships could be exempted from the sensor strength reduction penalty as they're more likely to be on grid fighting and risking death and wouldn't specifically require a Virtue set to probe out were it to safe up** anyhow.
* please also delete ECM from the game, tia. ** while this remains a thing |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2455
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:16:00 -
[618] - Quote
I like the idea that gang links inherit the agression of the fleet mates they are boosting. That would be the most balanced method, allowing fleets to disengage on gate with links running.
Until then, let them have weapons timers though! |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
574
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:35:00 -
[619] - Quote
Links should be modules that are activated on other players, like remote reps.
Once links are on grid, the larger fleet with more logi is even more powerful than it is now against a skirmishing force. Currently, you can at least try to rapidly switch targets to make the logi in the larger group maybe slip up and you can grab a ship.
Instead, with links on field the larger fleet can easier kill the smaller fleets links, and then be god mode.
The entire notion of a character that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING once the fight is on is terrible. It just sits there, receives reps, and the links keep cycling. AND affects the ENTIRE fleets/wing/squad.
To close - bigger fleets generally have more logistical challenges as they grow - except for links. And links are not an active role, they are an alt role - If they are on grid - fit buffer + resists, get pre-locked by logi, turn on links and ignore. If off grid similar, but scan for probes. It's NOT an exciting role for a PLAYER to fulfill.
Making them something that gets activated on players actually means a PLAYER DOES SOMETHING while boosting. It also means that the player's skill at using the ship comes into play, and lack of that skill can be exploited by the other side.
Finally, all the performance issues go away, and the same remote rep code flows can pretty much transfer aggression. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
170
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:35:00 -
[620] - Quote
Aloe Cloveris wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:All that would be required is to give the active links the same signature effect as an active mwd. Go ss your booster and have it probed quite easily. Or tank it the **** up and put it on grid with the logi it is boosting. As much as I want actively running link ships to be probeable, sig bloom is a bit heavy handed. If a link T3 actually chooses to get into the thick of the fighting it doesn't deserve to have a battleship sized sig (or dreadnaught sized sig should he use his mwd). A more sensible approach might be a 20% reduction in sensor strength for each warfare link active, which would help to cancel out the benefits of Dissolution Sequencer subs and make them easier and easier to probe the more links they actively run. A link T3 isn't going to be a crucial dps platform and if it's fighting and gets jammed because of its reduced sensor strength (why even bother jamming it, really?), it's not as life-threatening as being as hard to track/torp into oblivion as a fixed structure. Dedicated Command Ships could be exempted from the sensor strength reduction penalty as they're more likely to be on grid fighting and risking death and wouldn't specifically require a Virtue set to probe out were it to safe up** anyhow. * please also delete ECM from the game, tia. ** while this remains a thing Yes, it was just a quick suggestion. Yours is more elegant. Don't know if it would be more difficult to code though. However, I did say they would need to do something immediately about the tank gimp inherent in command subsystem tech IIIs. I agree if these ships are going to be forced on grid by nerfing the ss-ing nigh unprobable mechanic then these ships need something to allow them to survive in the fight.
edit- and actually I like Chatgris's suggestion more now ~ With so many characters trained into command links now this type of a solution would help them retain their value. There would be a percentage of fleet need for command ships and tech IIIs to distribute the effects. Just as most fleets calculate how many logi pilots they need. Also, it is a stealth buff to ecm and damp boats, and makes the multitasking skill a must have for these pilots like it is for logi pilots. |
|
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1412
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:02:00 -
[621] - Quote
My Feedback
-Create a larger difference in cap use between tech 1 and 2 armor reps. Make tech 2 not better, make it a trade off. Better armor repair rate for unstable cap levels. While tech 1 armor reps would take less cap based on meta level.
-On grid boosting is still important. May I suggest they instead drop a boey? And that gives bonuses to everyone on the grid. This way the Command ship can warp off grid, but the bonuses will continue to apply through the boey. Obviously it could be destroyed, but the trick is to give it a large 200-300km range so it needs to be hunted down. Makes great use of the jump drives you added, and black ops battle ships. Basically increasing the battle field size and promoting small gang warfare in a small way. These could be slapped all over the place far away from each other.
-Finally overhaul the warping mechanic. The differences in warp speed don't even come into play *it's an ignored stat* and that could play a large role in battles were you warp smaller distances. Think about how much more useful smaller groups would be if they moved around faster compared to their larger heavy weapon brothers. Or if you go out into a null sec roam in thrashers it could be twice fast than it is today. The disadvantage of battleships would be the current warp speeds. If people can take smaller ships to fly a dramatic shorter flight time I think it would justify the year long frigate skill trees and boost t2 frigates/smaller gang warfare.
For instance you scare off a battleship and he warps back to a station, he escaped. However it should take 4 times longer for him to return than it does for the frigate you scared off. When the logi ship warps off you know you don't have to worry because it can be given a slower warp speed for balance. There could be a much larger difference between ships and make the game more tactical. I know it's because of some old code that holds this part of Eves design back, but I think it's important to the playerbase considering warping is one of the most common actions in the game. it's worth overhauling.
-Keep up the good work you guys have been fixing the very core of the game, please don't be afraid to really dig in deep. Please : ( http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Landrik Blake
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:47:00 -
[622] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA. Would it be possible to use the D-Scan code when activating gang link modules as a temporary solution? I understand that D-Scan has it's own quirks, and grids themselves can be stretched and shaped in unusual ways, but D-Scan is usually pretty good at quickly determining which ships are on grid and which aren't. At this point, I think a less-than-perfect work around for the short term is still better than waiting another 12? 18? 24? months for a proper off-grid link fix. |
Luke Frazza
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:09:00 -
[623] - Quote
Links are an unfair mechanic, even though they are equally available to anyone in the game who desires to train them
Coming prepared to a fight means having everything in order, ships, mods, rigs, drugs, ammo, implants, boosters.
I am so butthurt for losing my ship, because i didnt come prepared to the fight, and want to thank you for providing me a focus to blame (other than my own failure).
Also lets make sure we further penalize those who spent 6 months to a year training t3 boosters by making thier current implants less powerful and obsolete to faction implants. that will make me feel a little better about coming unprepared to the fight and losing my ship.
Fozzie seriously i think ur trying to hard to make everyone happy.
You made it so you cant boost inside a pos. great. Nerf complete. No wait cuz your next complaint ur gonna get from the QQ majority is, (whiny voice) "But i cant kill his booster because they have pos guns, can we nerf pos guns now?"
T3s can not be made to be improbable. You got people qqing here because the booster pilot is actually watching the dscan for probes? really?
You want to make sure Command Ships give more bonus than t3, no problem, everyone including the boosters agree with you on that.
2 pilots were always more powerful than 1 pilot with a booster.
But what about those who currently spent a year of training to fly all t3 boosters at max with mindlinks? Ur kind of screwing them over by saying they need to replace thier mindlinks.
I dont mind switching to command ships. I dont mind that boosters have to be out of the pos field. I think your other nerfs are way over overdone but as long as they are equally applied..
But if ur gonna introduce new mindlinks which make the old ones pretty much obsolete, then give us the option to unfit them and trade them in with lp for new ones. You say those mindlinks are about 150m? try 250m in some cases of the recent past. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1049
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:32:00 -
[624] - Quote
chatgris wrote:Links should be modules that are activated on other players, like remote reps.
Once links are on grid, the larger fleet with more logi is even more powerful than it is now against a skirmishing force. Currently, you can at least try to rapidly switch targets to make the logi in the larger group maybe slip up and you can grab a ship.
Instead, with links on field the larger fleet can easier kill the smaller fleets links, and then be god mode.
The entire notion of a character that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING once the fight is on is terrible. It just sits there, receives reps, and the links keep cycling. AND affects the ENTIRE fleets/wing/squad.
To close - bigger fleets generally have more logistical challenges as they grow - except for links. And links are not an active role, they are an alt role - If they are on grid - fit buffer + resists, get pre-locked by logi, turn on links and ignore. If off grid similar, but scan for probes. It's NOT an exciting role for a PLAYER to fulfill.
Making them something that gets activated on players actually means a PLAYER DOES SOMETHING while boosting. It also means that the player's skill at using the ship comes into play, and lack of that skill can be exploited by the other side.
Finally, all the performance issues go away, and the same remote rep code flows can pretty much transfer aggression.
Great idea.
Not only will the performance issues go away the extra $15 for a booster alt that does nothing but align out and scan for probes goes away. ... Oh wait!
Bottom line: Does ccp have enough confidence in eve long term to end this horrible mechanic where you have alts just sitting off grid giving your main god-mode. Or are they going for the short term money grab that some pathetic eve veterans will pay to drag a booster alt along with them wherever they go. Sadly some eve players are pathetic enough to do that. So normal people who just want to have fun in a game won't be able to compete. What sort of player/person does ccp want eve to attract?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Shamna Skor
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:09:00 -
[625] - Quote
When a player has a lock on an enemy ship receiving off-grid boosts, why not have the location of the boosting ship appear on the sensor overlay and provide a warp-in as long as the boosts are still active and the ship receiving the boosts is still targeted. This makes sense from a "logic" perspective (if there is energy coming from a point in space and hitting my locked target then it's plausible that my sensors might pick it up), and also allows some sort of counter to off-grid safed-up boosts for those that are on-grid already. |
Heinrich Skalder
Torsion Industries Asgard Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 03:44:00 -
[626] - Quote
Glad I worked my butt off to get my Mining Foreman Mindlink just to have everyone else be able to get them. Nice job giving out freebies. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
818
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:36:00 -
[627] - Quote
Wow, dont make a weapons timer for links, or ongrid boosting in lowsec fleet fights will cease to exist. Anything that makes support ships unable to jump at the same time as combat ships is bad design.
Stop making changes with off grid boosting in mind. You should be making changes as if offgrid boosting will be removed, because you promised it will be. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1434
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:39:00 -
[628] - Quote
Heinrich Skalder wrote:Glad I worked my butt off to get my Mining Foreman Mindlink just to have everyone else be able to get them. Nice job giving out freebies. I bought my first one when they were 400 million. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Evestriker
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:51:00 -
[629] - Quote
Yet another reason for a lot of peeps the be peeved CCP
Might wanna concider the time and Money people have invested in skilling leadership to have it cut in half or even reduced is going to be a whip on the Private parts to a lot of people.
Everyone Knows what boosts there are if they want to invade a area they need to be prepared and compensate that into their assault.
The people who complain are the ones who either don't have or just fail in epic tactics.
If it aint broke CCP don't fix it , no offence but seriously focus more on the important stuff like memory dump issues Or even alliance member access to POS modules like Corp hanger arrays and storage areas, having just the ship maintanace array as only access is rather ridiculous.
I do applaud the Ice belt change as it has stopped a lot of Bot's.
Again No offence!
Flysafe
|
JD No7
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 07:30:00 -
[630] - Quote
The 1 minute activation timer is possibly the worst dev fix I've seen.
Give it the Logi type timer, or leave it alone. Don't break on grid boosters because the code is hard to fix. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |