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) |
gawrshmapooo
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
22
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:15:00 -
[211] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Wow fozzie....you really managed to kick in the teeth of high today.
Those rare mission storyline drops worth anything...see ya. You just destroyed that. Incursions, well, anyone who flew static armour fleets is finished. That entire doctrine is done.
Shield doctrines, dunno yet, but first glance looking bad.
Basically, now need 3 logis to do the work of 3, so a direct nerf to income in high sec, making the cartel's moon goo income that more valuable
But I why should that be any different in anything else you do?
"Those rare mission storyline drops worth anything...see ya. You just destroyed that." <--what does this even mean "now need 3 logis to do the work of 3" <---sounds fair
Wut. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:15:00 -
[212] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Don't be dense: Using a command ship, with a 3% boost per level, the following links have basically the same value: Electronic Superiority, Recon Operation, Sensor Integrity, Evasive Maneuvers, Field Enhancement, Laser Optimization, and Harvester Capacitor. The base strength of the above warfare links were increased to make them effective on non-bonused BC hulls, too. Did you somehow miss that info?
Yes, the Amror and Shield Tanking, as well as the Skirmish Speed and Tackle Range were nerfed.... and rightly so!!! You realize that any of the 6 boosting siege warfare ships give every member in fleet almost the equivalent rep power of a full crystal implant set AND a standard blue pill? And you think that isn't enough? Really????
You care that people's optimal range on jammers and TDs go up? Or that they mine 3 percent (or whatever who cares) more per hour now.
Evasive Maneuvers is a tricky thing because reducing it too much makes sig tanking/ab hacs/100mn/range tanking, pretty much ever fleet concept that can beat a blob.
Sensor integrity is anti-ewar and elec superiority is ewar (which is broken right now anyway so whatever)
Do you want links removed or nerfed to uselessness? Sounds like I'm being a **** with that question but the reality is, either they are good or no one brings them except very large fleets.
Gang Links, EWAR and Bombers are the only force multipliers in this game, the only things that allow a smaller group to take on a bigger group. Range tanking or speed tanking used to be on there but that doesn't really exist anymore.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Let me explain what I meant, so we are on the same page. A loki provides a 2% boost to mindlinks per level At level 5, this is a 10% modifier = 1.1. A CS provides a static 15% boost to mindlinks. This is a 15% modifier = 1.15
So, using the same skills, same implants, links in the Loki will be 1.1 / 1.15 = 95.65% as effective as a Command ship. That is NOT a 15% difference, that is a 4.35% difference.
Since, the max boosts (provided by a CS) of say, Evasive Manuevers is STILL going to be 35% effective, the T3 will conitue to provide this boost at 95.65% of "max effectiveness". This is no where near your 15% difference!!!
(Technically, since it's max effectiveness is being reduced from 35 to 34.5 (98.57%), we could calculate the before vs after effectiveness at 98.57 * 95.65 = 94.28 % effectiveness. )
As for my second point... I can put my booster in a gated plex, and any attempt to warp to it will land you far from my boosting ship. I could station/gate/POS hug with it. I could have it at a deep safe, so my opponents don't even know it's providing links. For 1v1 + falcon, the falcon is very potent, but so is OGBers. As the numbers increase, the falcon becomes much less potent, but the benefits from the booster keep adding more EHP to your gang, more total rep power, and/or more overall benefits.
Ok so we agree that the difference is not huge but there still is a difference.
Links should give aggression so they cannot sit on station and dock instantly, gate to a plex, nothing you can do about that except have someone in there to tackle him when he tries it again. Forcing people into POS is a valid tactic and probing them out is a valid tactic to turn off their links.
I've already discussed forcing on grid bonuses plenty of times and it's a pointless exercise. People refuse to accept how people with link alts will adapt to it.
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:17:00 -
[213] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos.
Who cares, I'm using an Eos now alongside cloak warp trick to be invulnerable to anything but mass decloakers. (in low sec) Also I now have a tank and a bit of dps If I choose to use it and multiple bonused gang links. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:17:00 -
[214] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quote:The Warfare Processors will now provide a 2% increase in the strength of warfare links per level of their racial defensive subsystem skill. They will also now provide bonuses to three different types of gang links: Loki: Siege, Armored, Skirmish Proteus: Armored, Skirmish, Information Tengu: Siege, Skirmish, Information Legion: Armored, Skirmish, Information Not balanced at all: skirmish - 4 bonuses (all races) siege - 2 bonuses armored and information - 3 bonuses. Swap skirmish bonus on Proteus with siege (there are shield fit gallente ships) to balance things out.
+1 to this |
Rain6637
Team Evil
1615
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:17:00 -
[215] - Quote
I never imagined i could be so happy about a change such as navy mindlinks.
here i was willing to fly dual on-grid command ships just for how pretty they are.
CCP Fozzie this news is my Christmas Rainf1337 on Twitch |
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:20:00 -
[216] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff!
I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well.
(I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat) I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:22:00 -
[217] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way.
If the mindlink skill points actually worked for ANYTHING besides offgrid boosting you'd have a point here. Something like BS V isn't a "waste" because it helps you fly the ship. Those mindlink SPs don't help you in ANY WAY unless you're offgrid boosting with a fit that does nothing else, because you sure as hell can't fit 4 links on a command ship that you're actually going to fight with. The mindlink SPs are exactly the same as Advanced Spaceship Command and Jump Drive Operation, completely wasted do-nothing SPs that function as a time sink, and in the timesink category command ships are worse than dreadnaughts. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1245
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:24:00 -
[218] - Quote
Ok after looking at the changes properly.. you are pretty much buffing links as much as you nerf them..
Great job..
Sometimes i just get sad. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
darius mclever
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:28:00 -
[219] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
The issue of survival can only be addressed up to a certain size of combat. If you start getting past 100 people with decent damage anything will obliterate quickly. I wont even want to start about stupidities like 3, 4, 5 ... full fleets of battleships.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2405
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:32:00 -
[220] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote: Do you want links removed or nerfed to uselessness? Sounds like I'm being a **** with that question but the reality is, either they are good or no one brings them except very large fleets.
I want on grid boosts to be potent. I find the proposed values, or even the current values, pretty reasonable for a ship that is on gird, which can be neuted out, or primaried, and is at real risk of being destroyed.
I find it appalling that off grid boosters are more effective than pirate implants and/or standard drugs. They are giving these bonuses to everyone in fleet, while generally remaining safe. I think this is completely assbackwards in regards to the risk vs reward, especially when you compare the value of a blingy implant sets, or the viscous potential drawbacks of drugs.
Dez Affinity wrote: Gang Links, EWAR and Bombers are the only force multipliers in this game, the only things that allow a smaller group to take on a bigger group. Range tanking or speed tanking used to be on there but that doesn't really exist anymore.
Logistics is the BIGGEST force multiplier in this game. It belongs on that list!!!
Dez Affinity wrote: Links should give aggression so they cannot sit on station and dock instantly, gate to a plex, nothing you can do about that except have someone in there to tackle him when he tries it again. Forcing people into POS is a valid tactic and probing them out is a valid tactic to turn off their links.
I've already discussed forcing on grid bonuses plenty of times and it's a pointless exercise. People refuse to accept how people with link alts will adapt to it.
If activating gang links gave the pilot a weapons timer (which prevents docking, ejecting, and gate jumping), I'd be very pleased.
I would still insist off grid boosters to be less effective than pirate implant sets and drugs, and I don't mean a "single" booster, I mean the cumulative effect of all three racial boosters. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2408
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:35:00 -
[221] - Quote
Griznatch wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff! I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well. (I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat)
To be honest, I want to support this... but then I EFT how this enables 6 link tengus and stuff, and cringe on the inside.
|
Miv333
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:37:00 -
[222] - Quote
-1
For so many nerds whining for nerf bats daily. This is not a fix or improvement. |
Howling Jinn
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:40:00 -
[223] - Quote
Pure garbage.
Which clown came up with these ideas? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:41:00 -
[224] - Quote
so what is going to happen to command processors? I would suggest that CS and T-ú's have a hard limit of links they could use so 2 on CS and 3 on T3. So they would be only used to allow T1 bc's to use multiple links. 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. |
Violet Winters
Angelic Eclipse.
97
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:41:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP seems to like introducing new pointless modules which aren't needed. Just make the faction mindlink the same as T2 and remove the navy variation, this is basically what you did with the hurricane/hurricane fleet.
/Vio Anglic Eclipse.
Lee told me to remove my signature Minmatar and Gallente FW |
Griznatch
Distinguished Gentleman's Boating Club Test Alliance Please Ignore
275
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:43:00 -
[226] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Griznatch wrote:Are t3s still gonna require command processors to run multiple links? I'd like to see a t3 booster than can run 3 links and actually enter combat instead of sitting in a safe or outside a pos. You know, when CCP first released warfare boosting t3's, they envisioned them flying about with a single warfare link or two... not the 5-6 Link monstrosities we have today. I sincerely hope they don't remove the command processor requirements, because a 3-4 link t3 sacrifices soo much tank, that they become very precarious to leave un-observed, even next to a POS FF or station, as they can be alpha'd fairly easily. I think that is a very good tradeoff! I'm not talking about a 5 links monstrosity, I'm talking about fitting all 3 armor links on my legion and having room to fit a plate and some guns. If a t3 is only ever good for 1 link, why would I choose it over a battlecruser hull? The 10% bonus from the t3 hull is simply not worth the added cost/skill training/skill point loss upon death to run a single warfare link. Currently the only way a t3 booster is useful is to gimp it to hell and back, I'd like them to work like command ships, only not as well. (I like to fly t3s, I trained for several, I don't want them to be OP, just make them more than marginally better than a BC for boosting + combat) To be honest, I want to support this... but then I EFT how this enables 6 link tengus and stuff, and cringe on the inside.
Ok so make it so they can only ever run 3 links, with no command processors, not 3+ however many CPs you put on it
Command processors should be removed from the game entirely, and any class of ship that can fit links should have a set maximum number of links they can run.
With these changes, the way t3 boosters are gonna be used doesn't change at all, except for the `not inside a pos` bit. I used to have a clever sig but I lost it. |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:51:00 -
[227] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:I've said it more than a few times when people demand ON-GRID ONLY gang links but here I go again.
That will not have the effect you would like.
You will not have T3 gang boosters on grid with you, if they are they will be at 200km with a 100mn afterburner and aligned out. If they are using a Command ship, they will be heavily tanked and only at 0 fighting you alongside other ships if they are confident it can tank you. This also means they are not only providing links but DPS. Fun for you. If it's a "solo pvper" he knows you will run away if he's in a t1 cruiser with on grid links, so he will now switch his links to a falcon/curse/arazu/logi. Even more fun for you.
I'd personally rather fight one uber ship with disruptable gang bonsues than 2 ships with ewar or more dps. while its true that you could just sit there aligned out at 250km it now at least gives the opposing fleet an option of sending someone out there to kill it or force it off the field.
heck ill send 2-3 ships out there to reduce the enemy fleet EHP my 25%
before I didnt have that option. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:54:00 -
[228] - Quote
Sorry but since you are really not fixing anything at least add OGB to killmails.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:56:00 -
[229] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Mara Maken wrote:I'm Down wrote:The reason command ships safe up is because they have 0 survivability on grid. I see nothing in the 3 ops that even begins to address the issues of a command ship actually living for more than 5 seconds.
Also, The obscene needs to train for mindlinks has apparently not been addressed, which continues the wide gap between who can boost worth a ****, and who cannot. Maybe you should dunk a bit on the skill reqs for these. Hmm.. How about we reduce Titan skill requirements then also. Sorry reducing skill requirements makes no sense in the context of how Eve has always worked. You have to put in training time to get to that new shop or that new ability, it's always been that way. When you consider it takes 60-80 days to just train for an 4 very specific implants, it's in no way comparable to other ships or abilities. It should have a lvl 4 requirement on the warfare spec of choice. LvL 5 is so highly preventative for most pilots, and all it does is reduce the intended desires of flying command ships. Every FC in game knows how miserable it is to find a few pilots to run command ship links, and the 2 reasons stated above are exactly why. Yeah, its not like this game has diminishing returns or anything
look at it this way, if you train large autocannon specialization 5 it takes 27 days or so . . . that means you get 0.0007407% extra damage per day
80 days to train for a warfare link that gives a 25% bonus? 0.003125% bonus per day . . .
as someone with 14,000,000 in leadership, i can tell you that the training time is worth. every. minute. |
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:01:00 -
[230] - Quote
There goes boosting titans 99% of the time!
One more nerf to an already nearly useless ship class. |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
2029
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:05:00 -
[231] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We are also making some changes to the specific bonuses from the Information Warfare Skill, Information Warfare Mindlink and the Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link: The Info Warfare skill and mindlink will now give a bonus to scan resolution instead of lock range Information Warfare: Sensor Integrity link will provide its bonus to both sensor strength and lock range. This will be a problem for mining, as now strip range will exceed locking range, making the strip range link bonus pointless.
The Orca & Rorqual will need either another high-slot, or role bonus to compensate. |
Sigras
Conglomo
475
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:10:00 -
[232] - Quote
MarekCZE wrote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield People can still orbit just outside the forcefield I know, but they will at least have to keep an eye on that character so it's an improvement. YEAH lets **** up EVE online totaly its always nice to see something why people quit with eve. Just curious this was born in your blond head or? I just wanna know if u r nerd or somebody else. Pitchfork developers... no skill no brain... probably no education... without knowledge... all ur project was awesome thats why people playing thing like dust 514 also why a lot old players left EVE... how much account registred and how much is subscribed so far? Why u have records online only when u give away a lot gifts and before new datadisc... Best is you developing ***** and you get payed for it... awesome job man... why you rather dont fix bugs/exploits... and dont give hand in fight against cloak. Or your boss order you to nerf ISK income again? Its funny how somebody who was first in wolrd economic crisis making same mistake in game. is this lorem ipsum?
i mean seriously . . . it's not that the English is bad; it's that it's so bad
what exactly is your complaint? |
GreenSeed
612
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:12:00 -
[233] - Quote
i was hoping they would just remove the requirements from gang links entirely... they should fit on any high slot on any ship. with bonuses only on command ships, t3, and the like.
if they want links on grid eventually, forcing gangs to field BCs at least is not a good way of doing it.
also the idea of having ore links with shield and cycle time in one is really bad. given that every miner that's NOT a complete moron alraedy fits cycletime/range/shield links on any orca, the ORE link would just reinforce that notion and grant a free utility high.
and what about new miners that wont be tempted to train shield links due to them being nerfed now? the ore link simply would not fit due to prereqs.
if any ore link is added it should be cycle time/activation cost. that's already necessary on rorqs, due to cycle time time and activation cost being so high already, that miners often cant complete a full warp if they need to GTFO belt.
the biggest change i think is mind link isk cost, im certainly glad the foreman cartel is over. |
Lady Naween
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:16:00 -
[234] - Quote
navy links?!
you mean i wont have to use 4 clones for boosting anymore?!
YAY!!!!!
marry me fozzie!!! |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:28:00 -
[235] - Quote
Fozzie, can you list up the skill regs for the navy links. I am assuming that the Gallante for example will be Armor Specialist V and Skirmish Specialist V?
I would have preferred that mining links not be POS safe either. I see no reason for some exclusion to industry.
Charisma remap is a PITA.
Oh a Bonus question. (meh) I note that Skirmish Warfare Mindlinks changed price at the 21st well in advance of this blog. Is someone "inside" trading? |
ZoraTestra
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:32:00 -
[236] - Quote
Horrible idea, forcing Orcas and Rorqs to boost on grid no matter how you "rebalance" them. Their boosts often are an aid to miners in many different belts and it isn't practical to have one in each belt being mined.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lexar Mundi wrote:Mining links should not be given special treatment...
Give them an ORE battlecruiser size ship to run links on or something but to let them run links inside shield is pretty lame. We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.
|
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:34:00 -
[237] - Quote
So as a Commandship pilot i have this to say.
these NERF's because that is what they are will make sure that the large scale battles such Asakai and 6VDT-H will not happen. already in the huge fleet fights FC's ( boosters ) are getting volley right off the field without ANY AMOUNT OF LOGI COULD HAVE SAVED THEM !!! so if you want to force booster onto the field mayby you schoul consider thier Tank
and when it comes to mining boost if its move out of the poses - you effectively ( again ) make it more profitable to mine in high sec ( sefe sec ) than anywhere else but then again i have guessed that you really dont want people to live in nulsec for long periods of time. but gues what
i have spend all of three weeks in high sec since i started and none of my 12 paying accounts will ever live in high sec. might be time to look at other hobbies and places to spnd my money.
oh and since your completely rewamping the use of a feature ( boosting ) could we mayby get the option to redistribute our 15.872.000 SP or are we yet again being screwed over by a charlie phraise " I ALREADY HAVE YOUR MONEY SO SHUT THE F... UP "
please DEAR CCP - stop fixing stuff that is really broken until you have cleanup ALL that which is. and believe me you have plenty of work ahead of you.
|
Makalu Zarya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:45:00 -
[238] - Quote
Quote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield
seriously? all or nothing. Why do miners get special treatment again and the rest of us get ****** over? |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:47:00 -
[239] - Quote
Beidorion eldwardan wrote:already in the huge fleet fights FC's ( boosters ) are getting volley right off the field without ANY AMOUNT OF LOGI COULD HAVE SAVED THEM !!! so if you want to force booster onto the field mayby you schoul consider thier Tank
Yes, boostings ships should be on grid, not in safespot.
Have a look at Damnation's tank. There's a reason why it's the last ship that gets blown up if enemy can't alpha it. |
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:50:00 -
[240] - Quote
Damnation: Amarr Battlecruiser skill bonuses: 4% bonus to all Armor Resistances 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile velocity Command Ships skill bonuses: 10% bonus to all Armor hitpoints 10% bonus to Heavy Assault Missile and Heavy Missile damage (Was link bonus) Fixed Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules, 15% bonus to strength of Armored Warfare and Information Warfare links Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L , 2 turrets (-2), 5 Launchers Fittings: 1300(-290) PWG, 500(+25) CPU <--- here is the herf Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(+37) / 5000(+395) / 4300(-24) Base shield resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 0 / 20 / 70 / 87.5 Base armor resistances (EM/Therm/Kin/Exp): 50 / 35 / 62.5 / 80 Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3375 / 750s / 4.5 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.7(-0.004) / 13500000 / 13.10s(-0.08) Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+25) / 100 (+75) Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km (+20) / 210 / 7(+1) Sensor strength: 22 Radar (+6) Signature radius: 265 Cargo capacity: 645
so this means that with your so called fitting buff with the 100 powergrid reduction per module really means that a damnation only get another 10 powergrid total. nice ninja nerf there butt heads. could you not stop the sugar coating nerfs please have the balls to stand by the crap your body ( the company ) makes and stop with the politically correct terms call a donkey by its proper name an A + double SS
ps this forum NEEED a dislike post botton SO bad |
|
|
|
|
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 |