Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
I Accidentally YourShip
My Other Capital Ship is Your Mom
201
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 03:38:00 -
[31] - Quote
The doomsday idea is stupid. The subcap having a percentage of capital dps however is a good one. Stealth bombers do not do the upper end of battleship dps, they can't be fitted that way so this ship should not be able to pull maximum capital dps. Even a battlecruiser doing half of dread (Moros) dps while being fairly fragile would be potentially okay.
Still seems a bit overpowered, but being a T2 cruiser or battlecruiser hull they would be a couple hundred million isk. It would likely still be more cost effective to drop a bunch of dreads especially since you get insurance payouts unlike a T2 cruiser or battlecruiser hull. I don't think they would be used for fleet fights to be honest. Stealth bomber dps doesn't have a place in fleet fights either, only for bombing runs and to reiterate, the doomsday "nuke" is a stupid idea. They would likely be used to gank ratting capitals and gtfo before retaliation comes. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
222
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 03:39:00 -
[32] - Quote
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:The doomsday idea is stupid. The subcap having a percentage of capital dps however is a good one. Stealth bombers do not do the upper end of battleship dps, they can't be fitted that way so this ship should not be able to pull maximum capital dps. Even a battlecruiser doing half of dread (Moros) dps while being fairly fragile would be potentially okay.
Still seems a bit overpowered, but being a T2 cruiser or battlecruiser hull they would be a couple hundred million isk. It would likely still be more cost effective to drop a bunch of dreads especially since you get insurance payouts unlike a T2 cruiser or battlecruiser hull. I don't think they would be used for fleet fights to be honest. Stealth bomber dps doesn't have a place in fleet fights either, only for bombing runs and to reiterate, the doomsday "nuke" is a stupid idea. They would likely be used to gank ratting capitals and gtfo before retaliation comes.
Yes please allow my battlecruiser hull to do 7500 ******* DPS
this can't possibly be a bad idea...
I mean why even fly a command ship? it'd be more cost-effective to always drop one of these on a small gang and simply alpha them out of existence... |
I Accidentally YourShip
My Other Capital Ship is Your Mom
201
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 03:40:00 -
[33] - Quote
Golem Master wrote:Give the ability to reduce rezistents per shoot to titans. This will only effective against capitals size
Give the ability to increase rezistents to super carriers lets say for 1 min with a CD of 10 min
Give the ability to rep 100% more for 1 min to carriers with a 30min CD.
Give the ability to increase 50% dmg or rate of fire for 1 min with CD of 30 min to dreads.
Reduce 50% dmg to cruiser,frigates,destr hulls against capital size.
Reduce 30% dmg to t1 bs against capitals size.
Increase 20% dmg to black ops against cap size.
Increase 20% dmg to marauders against cap size.
T3 ships let them the same .
This will reduce ganks in hi sec to frighters
Cap fleets will figth another cap fleet
Will be hard to gank carriers without cap suport
BO&Marauders will be more on batllefield
Supercaps will be a lot more useful on batlle field.
Get your ****** stat cooldowns, debuffs and buffs out of my eve.
|
I Accidentally YourShip
My Other Capital Ship is Your Mom
201
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 03:42:00 -
[34] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:I Accidentally YourShip wrote:The doomsday idea is stupid. The subcap having a percentage of capital dps however is a good one. Stealth bombers do not do the upper end of battleship dps, they can't be fitted that way so this ship should not be able to pull maximum capital dps. Even a battlecruiser doing half of dread (Moros) dps while being fairly fragile would be potentially okay.
Still seems a bit overpowered, but being a T2 cruiser or battlecruiser hull they would be a couple hundred million isk. It would likely still be more cost effective to drop a bunch of dreads especially since you get insurance payouts unlike a T2 cruiser or battlecruiser hull. I don't think they would be used for fleet fights to be honest. Stealth bomber dps doesn't have a place in fleet fights either, only for bombing runs and to reiterate, the doomsday "nuke" is a stupid idea. They would likely be used to gank ratting capitals and gtfo before retaliation comes. Yes please allow my battlecruiser hull to do 7500 ******* DPS this can't possibly be a bad idea... I mean why even fly a command ship? it'd be more cost-effective to always drop one of these on a small gang and simply alpha them out of existence...
You are aware that it would be citadel torps, right? We are talking about a counterpart to the stealth bomber.
Inept.
|
Ireland VonVicious
Vicious Trading Company
306
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 03:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
T2 BC that can fit cap guns or missiles.
Cap guns can't hit sub cap ships for jack already.
Give it only 4 turrets or launchers. (( Adjust as needed, but keep it lean )) Could have damage bonus to cap weapons only and adjust amount of launchers accordingly.
No need to make it any more glass than other BC's.
It would have higher damage to caps by a decent amount but nothing game breaking.
It would suck compared to T1 BC's v.s. other sub caps.
Stealth could be cool.
Would need a small flight of light drones to help v.s. frigs.
Main concern would be fleet of them with lots of tp's / webs targeting things in high sec for ganks. Price to produce would need to walk a thin line of usefulness v.s. caps compared to high sec ganks.
350-400 mil range seems about right to me.
Not loving the idea but not hating it either. Just the only way I see it working. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
222
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 03:58:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ireland VonVicious wrote:T2 BC that can fit cap guns or missiles.
Cap guns can't hit sub cap ships for jack already.
Give it only 4 turrets or launchers. (( Adjust as needed, but keep it lean )) Could have damage bonus to cap weapons only and adjust amount of launchers accordingly.
No need to make it any more glass than other BC's.
It would have higher damage to caps by a decent amount but nothing game breaking.
It would suck compared to T1 BC's v.s. other sub caps.
Stealth could be cool.
Would need a small flight of light drones to help v.s. frigs.
Main concern would be fleet of them with lots of tp's / webs targeting things in high sec for ganks. Price to produce would need to walk a thin line of usefulness v.s. caps compared to high sec ganks.
350-400 mil range seems about right to me.
Not loving the idea but not hating it either. Just the only way I see it working.
For christ's sake.. there are REASONS subcaps can't do thousands and thousands of DPS
Ireland VonVicious wrote: Would need a small flight of light drones to help v.s. frigs..
Dreads got drones removed for very very very good reasons, are you daft? Why not just declare anyone dropping 10 ships onto grid is entitled to kill everything? |
RcTamiya Leontis
Satan's Unicorns
18
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 11:56:00 -
[37] - Quote
Imagine this in Wormholes ..... a fleet with cap guns on anything below a cap will instantly turn a solo triage into a useless dustcloud ... however i like the idea of having a counter to capitalblobs in c5 & c6 .... |
Maeltstome
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
434
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:26:00 -
[38] - Quote
I've often thought there needs to be a step between BS -> Dreadnaught. Flying Mauraders atm and they are nice (bastion mode is EXCELLENT) i don't think this bridges the gap however.
The idea of making a current hull-size fit oversized weapons could work, but it's a little uninventive... perhaps a new hull size is required to fill the gap, but have it keep racial flavour Examples:
Gallente mini-Carrier: Can field 5 Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Bonus to damage for these and bonus to fitting Warfare Links. Amarr mini-Carrier. Can field 5 Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Bonus to armor resist and bonus to fitting Warfare Links. Caldari mini-Dread. Uses a Torpedo sized assault launcher (like' HAM's). Bonus to Assault Torpedo damage/Explo-Radius and bonus to Warfare Links.* Minmatar mini-Dread. Uses Artillery (think 2500mm, but not 6x 2500 from a Nagl). Bonus to Projectile RoF and bonus to Warfare Links**
*Or to save server lag, a 'shotgun' torp launcher. Uses multiple charges but coded as 1 projectile, Lower ROF, higher alpha. This would have massive fitting Req and only have 1 Launcher slot
**Again, only uses 1 turret slot and the Arty has massive fitting Req.
90% of the time you group guns into 1 or 2 groups for fights. This is a fleet based design idea for large numbers of pilots using up as little CPU time as possible.
With correct balances to tracking/Explosion Rad/Velo these ships wouldn't need to be pre-nerfed with poor tank or fitting and would become a class of ship unto themself |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
222
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 14:54:00 -
[39] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:I've often thought there needs to be a step between BS -> Dreadnaught. Flying Mauraders atm and they are nice (bastion mode is EXCELLENT) i don't think this bridges the gap however.
The idea of making a current hull-size fit oversized weapons could work, but it's a little uninventive... perhaps a new hull size is required to fill the gap, but have it keep racial flavour Examples:
Gallente mini-Carrier: Can field 5 Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Bonus to damage for these and bonus to fitting Warfare Links. Amarr mini-Carrier. Can field 5 Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Bonus to armor resist and bonus to fitting Warfare Links. Caldari mini-Dread. Uses a Torpedo sized assault launcher (like' HAM's). Bonus to Assault Torpedo damage/Explo-Radius and bonus to Warfare Links.* Minmatar mini-Dread. Uses Artillery (think 2500mm, but not 6x 2500 from a Nagl). Bonus to Projectile RoF and bonus to Warfare Links**
*Or to save server lag, a 'shotgun' torp launcher. Uses multiple charges but coded as 1 projectile, Lower ROF, higher alpha. This would have massive fitting Req and only have 1 Launcher slot
**Again, only uses 1 turret slot and the Arty has massive fitting Req.
90% of the time you group guns into 1 or 2 groups for fights. This is a fleet based design idea for large numbers of pilots using up as little CPU time as possible.
With correct balances to tracking/Explosion Rad/Velo these ships wouldn't need to be pre-nerfed with poor tank or fitting and would become a class of ship unto themself
Please list 1 way that fitting capital weapons to subcaps will improve the game |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1033
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:I've often thought there needs to be a step between BS -> Dreadnaught. Flying Mauraders atm and they are nice (bastion mode is EXCELLENT) i don't think this bridges the gap however.
The idea of making a current hull-size fit oversized weapons could work, but it's a little uninventive... perhaps a new hull size is required to fill the gap, but have it keep racial flavour Examples:
Gallente mini-Carrier: Can field 5 Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Bonus to damage for these and bonus to fitting Warfare Links. Amarr mini-Carrier. Can field 5 Fighters or Fighter Bombers. Bonus to armor resist and bonus to fitting Warfare Links. Caldari mini-Dread. Uses a Torpedo sized assault launcher (like' HAM's). Bonus to Assault Torpedo damage/Explo-Radius and bonus to Warfare Links.* Minmatar mini-Dread. Uses Artillery (think 2500mm, but not 6x 2500 from a Nagl). Bonus to Projectile RoF and bonus to Warfare Links**
*Or to save server lag, a 'shotgun' torp launcher. Uses multiple charges but coded as 1 projectile, Lower ROF, higher alpha. This would have massive fitting Req and only have 1 Launcher slot
**Again, only uses 1 turret slot and the Arty has massive fitting Req.
90% of the time you group guns into 1 or 2 groups for fights. This is a fleet based design idea for large numbers of pilots using up as little CPU time as possible.
With correct balances to tracking/Explosion Rad/Velo these ships wouldn't need to be pre-nerfed with poor tank or fitting and would become a class of ship unto themself
No turret slot. Even with **** poor trackign stats a small hull can counter some of the enemy transversal and they you get a stupid blap fit.
Every single oversize weapon on a small hull should be missiles to be sure no combination of any module can give you a blap fit. No level of "**** tank" can counter the power of volleying the opposition especially if the ship is designed to be able to boast enough alpha to matter in a cap/supercap fight. |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1033
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
RcTamiya Leontis wrote:Imagine this in Wormholes ..... a fleet with cap guns on anything below a cap will instantly turn a solo triage into a useless dustcloud ... however i like the idea of having a counter to capitalblobs in c5 & c6 ....
Now imagine vindi webbing + golem painting anything above cruiser with a few of these arty fit @optimal. It gets stupid real fast imo. |
Thellero Orlenard
Omicron Frontier Exploration New Eden Commonwealth
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 08:41:00 -
[42] - Quote
How about they add subsystems to strategic cruisers? Increase their tankability but make the mass of the launcher (missiles and nuke) enormous so that the warp time is massive. |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
223
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 11:01:00 -
[43] - Quote
Thellero Orlenard wrote:How about they add subsystems to strategic cruisers to equip the launchers.? Increase their tankability but make the mass of the launcher enormous so that the warp time is massive.
Unprobable instantly landing **** YOU INSTADEAD TITAN T3
Please stop making horrible ideas |
seany1212
Tech Renegades
256
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:16:00 -
[44] - Quote
Supers have had many very significant nerfs, doomsdays used to be AoE and you could lose waves of subcaps to a single titan, then they went focused and still had to wait the cooldown, then it was changed so they couldnt doomsday subcaps, then there were tracking nerfs and EHP reductions.
The issue that EvE is gaining is that as there are more and more long term players around contributing to greater super pilot numbers, and as there are lots more ways to make isk, those supers are easier to acquire than ever before. However this idea isnt the right way to go about it and will make supers pretty much useless overnight.
Your stealth bombers comparison just shows how ill-thought out your idea is, stealths can't hold more than approximately 4 bombs with very little room cargo-wise for anything else, bombs are not targeted weapons, they travel in the direction you're flying for 30km and then detonate, they are time delayed between bomb runs which is why it's generally a good idea to warp away once dropping one.
I do agree that there will need to be a fragile anti-super sub-capital ship but this is way overpowered and under-thought about. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1033
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:16:00 -
[45] - Quote
Thellero Orlenard wrote:How about they add subsystems to strategic cruisers to equip the launchers.? Increase their tankability but make the mass of the launcher enormous so that the warp time is massive.
Whats the point of making it hard to warp out if you already blew your load and a Titan is about to die to a cruiser hull? |
Paikis
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1173
|
Posted - 2014.04.25 10:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
This is a terrible idea. Most of the "ideas" in this thread are terrible.
If you want to kill a Titan, you bring your own capitals to do it, or you bring a lot of subcaps. If you don't have a lot of subcaps or your own capitals, then what makes you think you're entitled to kill a Titan? |
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1204
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 00:24:00 -
[47] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
5. Trolling is prohibited.
Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.
This thread has also been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Meandering Milieu
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
23
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 04:00:00 -
[48] - Quote
Make it so it can only target caps. If you went with the "doomsday nuke mod" it shouldn't be able to be used against subcaps, for the same reason titans can no longer doomsday subcaps. |
Shivanthar
Thrilling Institution of TaTas Permanent Mental Syndrome
57
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 11:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
Leave the nuke part out, citadel cruisers are good to hear. In order to fight against super-caps, you need to be in dangerous places already. So, any frigate sized fleet would tear this citadel fleet apart, since citadel torpedoes will do NOTHING to them... Not counting other bomber wings against these cruiser wings. Risk is insta-death of the whole wing entirely. Reward is, if you can plan it right, it would bring havoc to the battlefield and shortens all those hours of fighting into *minutes*. Less server load, quicker deaths, everyone is happy.
If Eve has a logic of having oversized weapons on glass cannons to compete against their bigger brothers, which is indeed out there already, I don't understand people complain against it and calling it "illogical".
So, people is happy to see that a fenrir/providence/etc. goes down with a suicide Tornado fleet and calls it OK within the boundaries of *safe* high-sec, but very sad to see their *defensless* much higher EHP super-cap ship goes down in flames within -0.4 system because of a citadel-equipped-cruiser fleet? Ehm, but where is your defense fleet in this case?
Those, who were yelling to those industrial guys "get some defense if you carry anything important", where are you here? Super-cap itself is important, and if you get caught by a mystrious 10.000 fleet of citadel equipped cruisers, then I simply call it a bad intel, lame gameplay (solo navigation with super-cap?).
I support the OP (leaving doomsday/nuke part out ofc). Apologies if my English sucks. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
567
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 11:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Archimedes Eratosthenes wrote:Val'Dore wrote:Just be aware such offensive ability will pretty much make certain it is a paper tank. Which is not a bad thing. I was thinking making it a Destroyer hull instead. Thin as a dictor, but even slower.
Then they would just be smartbombed since most supers have at least one smartbomb fit, you get 250 of them in a fleet and most of the pods in those fights are killed by smartbombs rather than tacklers. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 15:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
There should be some sort of subcap that can utilize citadel torps much like the stealthbombers use standard torps. However the DD that the OP has requested should NOT be looked at.
To keep them on par with the stealthbomber flavor of bomb runs you could have a couple choices...
A. Add a new bomb that can only scrape the paint off subcaps due to the explosion velocity of it (So as not to step in on the current stealthbombers) B. Give them the ability to fit 2x bomb launchers. This would either let people make back to back bomb runs, or to cut the number of bombers per wave in half.
I did read a couple of posts mentioning having turrets on these ships. This should be a flat out no because they would be much easier to abuse with blapping subcaps when you compare the ease of abuse to missiles. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Rayzilla Zaraki
Tandokuno
200
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 16:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
I like the concept of a "Boomer" type of ship that is capable of being sneaky and delivering massive destruction. The OP also has a good start with making its tank paper thin. Painfully slow is also a good touch. I don't much care for the rest of the OP's execution of the concept, however.
For the warfare to be at all symmetrical CCP would then need to introduce a counterpart as in an "attack submarine" specifically designed to hunt the cloaked "Boomers". This would bring an interesting new gameplay to Eve for sure but is a slippery slope, nonetheless.
Make the "Boomers" based on the tier 3 battlecruisers and the attacks based on the destroyers introduced last year.
Perhaps allow both to target while cloaked, but must decloak to fire with a slow recloak time.
The "Boomer"'s main weapon would be more powerful than the citadel missiles, but nowhere near that of a doomsday. They could require a 60 second spool up time which slowly decloaks the ship. In game, the ship would fade in and out on the overview, each time staying faded in a little longer. A quick witted target might be able to lock the Boomer, thus decloaking it. Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues. |
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Umbrarum Paradisi
342
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:16:00 -
[53] - Quote
If there's a weapon that remotely decreases resists, you need a system that increases them remotely to balance it out. "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven."
-Jovian Proverb-á |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:18:00 -
[54] - Quote
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:If there's a weapon that remotely decreases resists, you need a system that increases them remotely to balance it out.
Already exists in game, called neuts and remote cap. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
573
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:28:00 -
[55] - Quote
this invariably gets suggested every year around this same time.... -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Umbrarum Paradisi
343
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:35:00 -
[56] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:If there's a weapon that remotely decreases resists, you need a system that increases them remotely to balance it out. Already exists in game, called neuts and remote cap. I said resists, not capacitor. "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven."
-Jovian Proverb-á |
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
228
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:38:00 -
[57] - Quote
Rayzilla Zaraki wrote:I like the concept of a "Boomer" type of ship that is capable of being sneaky and delivering massive destruction. The OP also has a good start with making its tank paper thin. Painfully slow is also a good touch. I don't much care for the rest of the OP's execution of the concept, however.
For the warfare to be at all symmetrical CCP would then need to introduce a counterpart as in an "attack submarine" specifically designed to hunt the cloaked "Boomers". This would bring an interesting new gameplay to Eve for sure but is a slippery slope, nonetheless.
Make the "Boomers" based on the tier 3 battlecruisers and the attacks based on the destroyers introduced last year.
Perhaps allow both to target while cloaked, but must decloak to fire with a slow recloak time.
The "Boomer"'s main weapon would be more powerful than the citadel missiles, but nowhere near that of a doomsday. They could require a 60 second spool up time which slowly decloaks the ship. In game, the ship would fade in and out on the overview, each time staying faded in a little longer. A quick witted target might be able to lock the Boomer, thus decloaking it.
So all we have to do is completely rewrite the cloaking, grid mechanics, overview, and graphics systems to implement a needless complexity that brings nothing to the game? |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:If there's a weapon that remotely decreases resists, you need a system that increases them remotely to balance it out. Already exists in game, called neuts and remote cap. I said resists, not capacitor.
No cap=no hardeners=reduced resists. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Umbrarum Paradisi
343
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:59:00 -
[59] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:If there's a weapon that remotely decreases resists, you need a system that increases them remotely to balance it out. Already exists in game, called neuts and remote cap. I said resists, not capacitor. No cap=no hardeners=reduced resists. I said increase, not decrease. His proposal is for a system that'll reduce resists remotely. There's no way to remotely increase them as balance. "A City made of Wood is built in the forest; A City made of Stone is built in the mountains; But a City made of Dreams....is built in heaven."
-Jovian Proverb-á |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
207
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 06:43:00 -
[60] - Quote
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:
No cap=no hardeners=reduced resists.
I said increase, not decrease. His proposal is for a system that'll reduce resists remotely. There's no way to remotely increase them as balance.
Sorry, I didn't finish my equation...
No cap=no hardeners=reduced resists=request for cap=receive remote cap=turn hardeners on=higher resist Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |