EVE Search - Blasters balance post with pictures and stuff

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blasters balance post with pictures and stuff

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 13 post(s)
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.05.08 11:12:00 - [211] Thought it didnt seem quite right thanks for that farjung. Will be able to do a full ion setup when the changes are finished.
Akiman	Posted - 2006.05.08 11:12:00 - [212] yes cap reduction was needed i trained controlled bursts to 4...thought it will do much difference but its not...how about pg any changes? or dps? blasron should gank anything in close range...thats why gallente prefers close range...
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.08 11:22:00 - [213] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Dunhill 1 a lot of crap ignornace ftw If you spelt it right it might affect someone and make them EMO! (waits for my fanclub to scream "like you kr") Senseless flame 4tw. Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.08 11:29:00 - [214] Originally by: KilROCK Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Dunhill 1 a lot of crap ignornace ftw If you spelt it right it might affect someone and make them EMO! (waits for my fanclub to scream "like you kr") Senseless flame 4tw. lol go away -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.05.08 12:18:00 - [215] Originally by: KilROCK Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Dunhill 1 a lot of crap ignornace ftw If you spelt it right it might affect someone and make them EMO! (waits for my fanclub to scream "like you kr") Senseless flame 4tw. kr stop being a tard, gronsak's native language isn't english
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.08 12:43:00 - [216] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: KilROCK Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Dunhill 1 a lot of crap ignornace ftw If you spelt it right it might affect someone and make them EMO! (waits for my fanclub to scream "like you kr") Senseless flame 4tw. kr stop being a tard, gronsak's native language isn't english Explain why he's so.... yea... explains alot cough Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Dunhill 1	Posted - 2006.05.08 13:14:00 - [217] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Dunhill 1 a lot of crap you have not got the slightest idea how different missiles and close range weapons are when was the last time you though omg i cant hit this cruiser while orbiting it and i dont want to slow down too much or those snipers 10km from me will start hitting me? when was the last time u had to switch off your missiles and let ur drones do the damage since ur guns use so much cap! ignornace ftw double you tee eff, are you on about??? nothing you posted makes sense, thankfully i read down and saw you have no understanding of english
Dash Ripcock	Posted - 2006.05.08 14:22:00 - [218] Tuxford - you posted earlier saying these proposed changes would make the Deimos easier to fit. It does not. The Deimos needs more CPU and Powergrid to be able to fit a rack Ion IIs, MWD, M Nos and a Medium Repairer. For those who say, "You shouldn't be able to fit that!" - why not? The Megathron can already and she isn't even a Tech 2 ship. If you're going to address the cruiser guns, please address the cruisers that use them as well. Any news on this Tuxford? The Firing Range
Daimos Bellurdan	Posted - 2006.05.08 14:24:00 - [219] Originally by: Dunhill 1 Edited by: Dunhill 1 on 08/05/2006 11:12:04 ..stuff.. Have you ever thought that those nerfs may be needed ? No ? Why dont you pilot a Mega and try to do the same things you do in a Raven ? After that come back and then take part in the discussion. Not fitting blasters? Ok, but only when you in your Raven are not allowed to fit missiles. No MWD? Have you actually ever used turrets or even blasters with their low optimal and a mediocre tank?
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.08 15:26:00 - [220] Originally by: Dash Ripcock Tuxford - you posted earlier saying these proposed changes would make the Deimos easier to fit. It does not. The Deimos needs more CPU and Powergrid to be able to fit a rack Ion IIs, MWD, M Nos and a Medium Repairer. For those who say, "You shouldn't be able to fit that!" - why not? The Megathron can already and she isn't even a Tech 2 ship. If you're going to address the cruiser guns, please address the cruisers that use them as well. Any news on this Tuxford? agreed every other hac can use a rac of the biggest guns and still have a useable fit. were just asking to be able to use the second biggest guns with a useable fit The only good fix is a DEAD fix
Butter Dog	Posted - 2006.05.08 15:28:00 - [221] Originally by: Dunhill 1 Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Dunhill 1 a lot of crap you have not got the slightest idea how different missiles and close range weapons are when was the last time you though omg i cant hit this cruiser while orbiting it and i dont want to slow down too much or those snipers 10km from me will start hitting me? when was the last time u had to switch off your missiles and let ur drones do the damage since ur guns use so much cap! ignornace ftw double you tee eff, are you on about??? nothing you posted makes sense, thankfully i read down and saw you have no understanding of english What Gronsak said makes perfect sense, as anyone who has flown a Blasterthron will know. The only personal who seems to lack an understanding of the topic in hand is you. ------------------ www.eve-iss.com
Magnus Thermopyle	Posted - 2006.05.08 15:41:00 - [222] If I am reading those grafs right, than torps for Raven is terrible overpowered. They do the same damage from 0km to 80km, so why should they also do almost the same damage as a mega or other blaster BS? And this gets even worse if you compare to rails with AM. Torps do much more damage than rails AND has a longer range AND dont suffer from tracking AND dont take any cap AND can switch damage types. Talk about unbalanced! Anyway, lets leave the torp nerfing for another day. But if you are reducing cap on blasters because they take more cap than energy blasters, than please do the same for rails. They take a silly amount of cap to use, and arent that great to begin with.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.08 18:08:00 - [223] Just a funny thing to consider: Normalized electron blaster cannon II 0.4666.. Normalized tachyon beam II after 5% boost: 0.408 Normalized 425mm rail II: 0.30... Now with geddons rof bonus tachyons actually do same damage as electron blasters on thron.... (33% vs 25%). Range is better on thron, however it is more or less pointless as geddon has 150+ km optimal with gleam. And i've seen tempest getting owned at 5km by tachgeddon(dual web), wasn't really funny. However it was pre-RMR and geddon had 6x hsII. Die, die, die.
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.08 18:28:00 - [224] Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.08 18:34:00 - [225] Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P u can fit 3x t2 dmg mods, xl t2 booster, amp, hardeners and 6x t2 siege launchers! what else do u want? -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.08 18:38:00 - [226] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P u can fit 3x t2 dmg mods, xl t2 booster, amp, hardeners and 6x t2 siege launchers! what else do u want? no you cant not without a cpu and rcu (you are leaving out a few vital modules) >_> ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Farjung	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:19:00 - [227] Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P u can fit 3x t2 dmg mods, xl t2 booster, amp, hardeners and 6x t2 siege launchers! what else do u want? no you cant not without a cpu and rcu (you are leaving out a few vital modules) >_> Yeah, which take two lows, leaving 3 for 3 t2 damage mods, like he said. It's an inherent problem to the nature of shield tank vs armor tank - we're trying to cram tank, damage and fitting mods in 7 low slots, whereas you're doing fitting mods and damage in 5. Losing two slots that would otherwise be used for 4th/5th damage mod really don't hurt as much as losing a slot that would otherwise contain a 2nd damage mod. In terms of pure tank vs damage the cap injecting torp raven is way ahead of the megathron, and people moan about it a lot, but on the other hand, there's a reason you see people soloing in megathrons and tempest, but very rarely in ravens. The cap injecting torp raven is an awesome defensive setup; but you have to rely on your targets to come to you unless you're flying with tacklers. This point often gets ignored when people complain about the raven, but it's a very important drawback. There's a reason you don't see (m)any solo raven movies whereas there are plenty of turret bs solo movies ¼_¼. --- Reckless Wave of Mutilation
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:27:00 - [228] Edited by: Jim Raynor on 08/05/2006 19:29:42 Originally by: Farjung Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P u can fit 3x t2 dmg mods, xl t2 booster, amp, hardeners and 6x t2 siege launchers! what else do u want? no you cant not without a cpu and rcu (you are leaving out a few vital modules) >_> Yeah, which take two lows, leaving 3 for 3 t2 damage mods, like he said. It's an inherent problem to the nature of shield tank vs armor tank - we're trying to cram tank, damage and fitting mods in 7 low slots, whereas you're doing fitting mods and damage in 5. Losing two slots that would otherwise be used for 4th/5th damage mod really don't hurt as much as losing a slot that would otherwise contain a 2nd damage mod. In terms of pure tank vs damage the cap injecting torp raven is way ahead of the megathron, and people moan about it a lot, but on the other hand, there's a reason you see people soloing in megathrons and tempest, but very rarely in ravens. The cap injecting torp raven is an awesome defensive setup; but you have to rely on your targets to come to you unless you're flying with tacklers. This point often gets ignored when people complain about the raven, but it's a very important drawback. There's a reason you don't see (m)any solo raven movies whereas there are plenty of turret bs solo movies ¼_¼. yes caldari (shield tankers in general) suck for teh solo :/ at least one person understands that while a shield tanked torpedo raven is a very powerful combat ship it has a lot of drawbacks, such as mobility, the ability to pin targets down, ect. people seem to forget that.. ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Naal Morno	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:32:00 - [229] Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P u can fit 3x t2 dmg mods, xl t2 booster, amp, hardeners and 6x t2 siege launchers! what else do u want? no you cant not without a cpu and rcu (you are leaving out a few vital modules) >_> He meant a set of WCSes _________________________________________ Every time you whine a little Cloak is destroyed. Please think of the little Cloaks
Atma Darkwolf	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:46:00 - [230] might be slightly off topic, but why not make hybird ammo do same damage, but split it up into all 4 damage types(so it does em/kin/them/ex damage) make it harder to tank against(so that it is NOT the most tanked against) It would give a slight advantage to hybird users, while not increasing the overall damage. It would also force other pilots to shore up thier other resists more (Instead of just 90%ing thermal/kinetic)
Zahin Vassar	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:48:00 - [231] Thanks for the update Tuxford. It's starting to look better. However things should be looked at in context, and looking only at the guns won't fix everything. I have a few points to make: 1) Using Quickfit for dps calculation i get 50.1 dps for 800mm autocannons and 53.2 dps for Neutron Blasters. The blasters like in the graph use 3.43 cap per second at max skills (for roughly 3.1 extra dps), 800mm Repeating Artillery is going to use none at all. That -3.43 cap/second could be used for armor repairing (+5.145 repaired/second) or shield boosting (+3.43 shield/second), but instead it is used for doing +3.1 more dps. Considering that restoring +5.145 armor/second with 50% resistances across the board requires exactly 10.290 raw dps to be be undone, one can safely say that in their current state blasters eat a lot of cap for very little extra damage. Now the promised -30% cap useage reduction on blasters: -3.43 cap/second becomes -2.4 cap/second which converts into +3.6 armor/sec or +2.4 shield/sec against 3.1 dps. This is definitely much better, but still less efficient than repairing/boosting when considering shield and armor resistances. Anyway, i won't dabble too deeply into this since i'm not familar with how the devs value dps vs tanking. 2) A dedicated blaster boat needs to have a MWD capacitor penality reduction like the Thorax. Consider swapping the tracking bonus of the megathron with it, or giving such a bonus to the new tier 3 gallente battleship. 3) The working range of blasters is too tight on electron and ion blasters (of all sizes, i'm just putting down the numbers for bs sized ones). Increasing falloff of electron and ion blasters to the same value as that of neutrons would help quite a bit. Autocannons are designed so that they have all the same falloff, and it works rather nicely.. of course they should keep their advantage, but the extra falloff for blasters would make them that much more useable... read, helping blasters to actually deliver their damage. Electron Blaster Cannon I: range 4000, falloff 6000 changes to falloff 10000 Ion Blaster Cannon I: range 5000, falloff 8000 changes to falloff 10000 Neutron Blaster Cannon: range 6000, falloff 10000 4) The change to CPU requirements is a good one, but CPU is still a bit tight. The powergrid requirement of blasters is too high though. Ion and Neutron Blasters require more powergrid and still significantly more cpu than autocannons. Perhaps it's time to bring the requirements down a little, because quite frankly, fitting neutrons isn't really viable with the grid that's left after a useable setup. 5) MWD duration and cap cost should be halved to give the pilot more control over ship speed and cap consumption. Also, please add a small countdown display to each module that shows the time left untill the completion of its current activation cycle. 6) Battleship sized MWDs need to be looked at, and cruiser sized ones too, but to a lesser extent. A MWD on a frigate is far more useful than it is on a BS. When a frigate activates its MWD it will quickly regain the cap it has lost, but a battleship won't. In my opinion the activation cost of 10mn MWDs should be reduced by 20% and that of 100mn MWDs by 40% for a start. 7) Dedicated blaster ships need to have fast acceleration and deceleration and good maneuvrability. That's not a problem with with blasters, it's a problem with the ships that mount them. I find that most blaster ships could use an increase to agility. This is just as important as fixing the blasters themselves.
Farjung	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:48:00 - [232] Edited by: Farjung on 08/05/2006 19:48:12 Originally by: Atma Darkwolf might be slightly off topic, but why not make hybird ammo do same damage, but split it up into all 4 damage types(so it does em/kin/them/ex damage) make it harder to tank against(so that it is NOT the most tanked against) It would give a slight advantage to hybird users, while not increasing the overall damage. It would also force other pilots to shore up thier other resists more (Instead of just 90%ing thermal/kinetic) /me hands Atma a minnie-retardant flamesuit --- Reckless Wave of Mutilation
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.08 19:56:00 - [233] Originally by: Naal Morno Originally by: Jim Raynor Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Jim Raynor Why does every Megathron pilot whine about having to fit a CPU or RCU to fit all their stuff? I have to use at least 1 co-proc II and reactor control II for just about every Raven setup be it cruise launchers or siege launchers and I have advanced weapon upgrades 5. Still can't fit a xlarge shield booster II either, always about oh.. 50 CPU short. =P u can fit 3x t2 dmg mods, xl t2 booster, amp, hardeners and 6x t2 siege launchers! what else do u want? no you cant not without a cpu and rcu (you are leaving out a few vital modules) >_> He meant a set of WCSes bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (injector and nos actually) ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.08 20:14:00 - [234] Originally by: Zahin Vassar Thanks for the update Tuxford. It's starting to look better. However things should be looked at in context, and looking only at the guns won't fix everything. I have a few points to make: 1) Using Quickfit for dps calculation i get 50.1 dps for 800mm autocannons and 53.2 dps for Neutron Blasters. The blasters like in the graph use 3.43 cap per second at max skills (for roughly 3.1 extra dps), 800mm Repeating Artillery is going to use none at all. That -3.43 cap/second could be used for armor repairing (+5.145 repaired/second) or shield boosting (+3.43 shield/second), but instead it is used for doing +3.1 more dps. Considering that restoring +5.145 armor/second with 50% resistances across the board requires exactly 10.290 raw dps to be be undone, one can safely say that in their current state blasters eat a lot of cap for very little extra damage. Now the promised -30% cap useage reduction on blasters: -3.43 cap/second becomes -2.4 cap/second which converts into +3.6 armor/sec or +2.4 shield/sec against 3.1 dps. This is definitely much better, but still less efficient than repairing/boosting when considering shield and armor resistances. Anyway, i won't dabble too deeply into this since i'm not familar with how the devs value dps vs tanking. 2) A dedicated blaster boat needs to have a MWD capacitor penality reduction like the Thorax. Consider swapping the tracking bonus of the megathron with it, or giving such a bonus to the new tier 3 gallente battleship. 3) The working range of blasters is too tight on electron and ion blasters (of all sizes, i'm just putting down the numbers for bs sized ones). Increasing falloff of electron and ion blasters to the same value as that of neutrons would help quite a bit. Autocannons are designed so that they have all the same falloff, and it works rather nicely.. of course they should keep their advantage, but the extra falloff for blasters would make them that much more useable... read, helping blasters to actually deliver their damage. Electron Blaster Cannon I: range 4000, falloff 6000 changes to falloff 10000 Ion Blaster Cannon I: range 5000, falloff 8000 changes to falloff 10000 Neutron Blaster Cannon: range 6000, falloff 10000 4) The change to CPU requirements is a good one, but CPU is still a bit tight. The powergrid requirement of blasters is too high though. Ion and Neutron Blasters require more powergrid and still significantly more cpu than autocannons. Perhaps it's time to bring the requirements down a little, because quite frankly, fitting neutrons isn't really viable with the grid that's left after a useable setup. 5) MWD duration and cap cost should be halved to give the pilot more control over ship speed and cap consumption. Also, please add a small countdown display to each module that shows the time left untill the completion of its current activation cycle. 6) Battleship sized MWDs need to be looked at, and cruiser sized ones too, but to a lesser extent. A MWD on a frigate is far more useful than it is on a BS. When a frigate activates its MWD it will quickly regain the cap it has lost, but a battleship won't. In my opinion the activation cost of 10mn MWDs should be reduced by 20% and that of 100mn MWDs by 40% for a start. 7) Dedicated blaster ships need to have fast acceleration and deceleration and good maneuvrability. That's not a problem with with blasters, it's a problem with the ships that mount them. I find that most blaster ships could use an increase to agility. This is just as important as fixing the blasters themselves. 8) Can I also get a pony.
ThunderGodThor	Posted - 2006.05.09 03:36:00 - [235] Originally by: Dash Ripcock Tuxford - you posted earlier saying these proposed changes would make the Deimos easier to fit. It does not. The Deimos needs more CPU and Powergrid to be able to fit a rack Ion IIs, MWD, M Nos and a Medium Repairer. For those who say, "You shouldn't be able to fit that!" - why not? The Megathron can already and she isn't even a Tech 2 ship. If you're going to address the cruiser guns, please address the cruisers that use them as well. Any news on this Tuxford? Signed!! Can we plz get the fitting requirements fixed with the Deimos at the very least.. and can you plz think about fixing the ship its self? The Deimos'es problems.
Mishima	Posted - 2006.05.09 04:36:00 - [236] sux then after this armageddon is gonna be the only bs that can't fit gank/tank without 1-2 co-pro (WASTE OF SLOTS) great I love x-mas :D
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.09 06:44:00 - [237] Originally by: Mishima sux then after this armageddon is gonna be the only bs that can't fit gank/tank without 1-2 co-pro (WASTE OF SLOTS) great a mega cant fit neutrons + gank + tank a tempest cant fit 800s + gank + tank just like a gedden cant fit MP + gank + tank [well not great] but try a HHP gedden -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
LukaG	Posted - 2006.05.09 08:31:00 - [238] I love the way we get this unique oppertunity to provide feedback on Tux's changes and people go off on complete f%^&ing tangents about stuff that has sweet FA to do with Blasters. Tux: thank you for the changes, however as I'm sure you have noticed it has been argued by much more informed people then myself that Blasters as a concept are still not worth using because of the inherent problems with the platforms that they are used in (i.e Mega/Deimos). I hope you will be able to work on the bigger picture slightly.
Hellspawn01	Posted - 2006.05.09 11:12:00 - [239] Edited by: Hellspawn01 on 09/05/2006 11:20:12 Originally by: Tuxford with blasters. Fitting Lets take a look at grid first. 7 neutron blaster cannons II take up 16 541 MW ignoring the advanced weapon upgrade skill. With engineering level 5 the megathron has 19 375MW to play with so that leaves 2 834MW. Using the same logic on mega pulse lasers on armageddon and apocalypse we find out that Apoc has 5125MW and Armageddon has 1 375MW. Gridwise I think blasters are fine, it is somewhat easier to fit mega pulse on an apoc but it doesn't really do the same damage as blasterthron, and although arma gets pretty close to the damage output its a bit harder to fit than mega. CPU Using the same logic as with the grid then megathron with blasters has 204.5 tf left, apoc 254 tf and arma 191.5 tf. This is with the 10% reduction in cpu. I guess the cpu left is a bit low. Giving it a 15% reduction gets it down to 62tf which it leaves it with 253.5 tf left which is pretty similar to apocalypse with mega pulse lasers. Cap I said I would lower the cap by 15%. Ignoring bonuses then that brings neutron blasters down to 2.8 cap/sec. Mega pulse laser with amarr battleship level 5 use 2.53 cap/sec. Ok I'll admit it maybe a was a bit to conservative since I would think even at level 5 neutron blasters should still use less cap/sec than megapulse lasers. Reducing it to 25% lowers it to about 2.5 which is about the same as mega pulse lasers and 30% brings it down to 2.3 cap/sec. So what does that mean. Well the cap need will be reduced further, probably by 30% rather than 25%. CPU need decreased by about 15% instead of 10%. Tracking very possibly boosted a bit but it's hard to pin down a number and it really won't fix everything about blasters. So this was a little glimpse into my twisted mind, flame away. p.s. Happy Birthday For the first time since you started swinging the nerfhammer, I actually agree with you. NOW FIX MY SAC Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Mishima sux then after this armageddon is gonna be the only bs that can't fit gank/tank without 1-2 co-pro (WASTE OF SLOTS) great a mega cant fit neutrons + gank + tank a tempest cant fit 800s + gank + tank just like a gedden cant fit MP + gank + tank [well not great] but try a HHP gedden Either you tank or gank. Blasterthrons have the damage already so you only need a tank Imo. Ship lovers click here
Red Drive	Posted - 2006.05.09 12:02:00 - [240] i just want to ad something from my point of view - solo BS pvp is all done @ close range. blasterships already have big advantages on this - scrambling and webbing and nosing fits their optimal range perfectly, while longrange guns cant track ****. just dont make blasters the ONLY weapon of choice.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.