Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 78 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
884
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 23:54:00 -
[421] - Quote
Regarding industrials, though, I'd like to see some math. How much space can one cover in the five minutes it takes for the JB fatigue to wear off, compared to an interceptor? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Neesa Corrinne
Sanctuary of Shadows Honorable Third Party
73
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 23:57:00 -
[422] - Quote
Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.
10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains. |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:06:00 -
[423] - Quote
wow this whole hauling jumpbridge issue might make for some funny killmails. i mean 200 haulers meet bombers on JB LMFAO -200 tengus. |
Iudicium Vastus
Incognito Holdings and Savings
308
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:06:00 -
[424] - Quote
Stabbed-align-fit T1 industrial being used as the new shuttle.
Please CCP, don't do the fatigue reduction on T1 haulers/industrials!!! If anything, possibly the T2 (Hell, Deep Space Transport has the title Deep Space right in its name) but NOT cheap minutes long training T1 industrials. Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW? No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too) |
Cr Turist
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
27
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:08:00 -
[425] - Quote
And in the words of the one and only Drunkenone
" DrunkenOne SM3LL: This isn't a fps and it's designed to conquer and reflect RL wants and desires. Hobo's don't need a home. Just a shopping cart and a bag for their cans"
D1 for CSM
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:11:00 -
[426] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We would like nullsec to transition to a new status quo over time in as orderly a manner as possible, and maintaining as much of its current population as possible (or increasing it, obviously), while still actually achieving the new status quo. We're of the opinion that if we push the 5LY range through now, we'll lose a lot of nullsec players while they try to reach a new equilibrium, and it's possible that it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of nullsec overall, which is not an outcome we'd be happy with.
Based on the proposed changes, it would not seem like any of the issues related to this thought process were even considered before the devblog was released. You can't tell me it took the player base, the CSM or even Manny to determine that there might be tangential consequences related to these changes that would affect the broad markets or the carrying capacity of nullsec as it currently exists.
|
Tyr Dolorem
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
25
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:13:00 -
[427] - Quote
BLOPS is still dead |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:13:00 -
[428] - Quote
Neesa Corrinne wrote:Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.
10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains.
We logistics pilots WANT this change to nullsec. We just don't want the 5LY nerf from hell. Combined with fatigue, it reduced JF M3Lightyears / Time by more than 95% (24x).
At 7.5 ly the reduction in JF performance is about 90% (10x), which believe it or not I can live with.
At 10ly, the reduction in JF performance is about 75% (4x), which is pretty much the same as if you had left range alone and just given it the 90% fatigue bonus.
Most of the nerf to JF performance comes from fatigue, not range. You can't Ping-Pong cynos with fatigue. |
TheGreatConstructo
Electrocuted Wanderers
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:16:00 -
[429] - Quote
Nazri al Mahdi wrote:Neesa Corrinne wrote:Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.
10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains. We logistics pilots WANT this change to nullsec. We just don't want the 5LY nerf from hell. Combined with fatigue, it reduced JF M3Lightyears / Time by more than 95% (24x). At 7.5 ly the reduction in JF performance is about 90% (10x), which believe it or not I can live with. At 10ly, the reduction in JF performance is about 75% (4x), which is pretty much the same as if you had left range alone and just given it the 90% fatigue bonus. Most of the nerf to JF performance comes from fatigue, not range. You can't Ping-Pong cynos with fatigue.
Wrong. With lower range you have to take geography into account a lot more and there are areas you wouldn't be able to jump to/from, changing where you would use jump freighters (or if you would use a gate or not). Thus range is extremely important to the performance of a jump freighter. |
Nordalis Rmith
The 501st Legion Galactic Skyfleet Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:16:00 -
[430] - Quote
This is my first post on the forums, you rock. Thanks for this. I'm a noob, you have won my subscription for the next year at least. |
|
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:18:00 -
[431] - Quote
TheGreatConstructo wrote:Nazri al Mahdi wrote:Neesa Corrinne wrote:Soooo people will jump in cheap T1 haulers to use their jump bridge chain to get in range of their carrier cache's and end up with substantially less fatigue than if they had jumped their carriers the same distance. You really shouldn't change the JB penalties at all. This will get gamed hard.
10LY for JF's? I mean if you're gonna give into the indie whiners, then come up to like 8LY. I mean 10LY is barely even a dent, why bother even making a change for 2 LY? Now you're right back to 100% completely safe logistics chains. We logistics pilots WANT this change to nullsec. We just don't want the 5LY nerf from hell. Combined with fatigue, it reduced JF M3Lightyears / Time by more than 95% (24x). At 7.5 ly the reduction in JF performance is about 90% (10x), which believe it or not I can live with. At 10ly, the reduction in JF performance is about 75% (4x), which is pretty much the same as if you had left range alone and just given it the 90% fatigue bonus. Most of the nerf to JF performance comes from fatigue, not range. You can't Ping-Pong cynos with fatigue. Wrong. With lower range you have to take geography into account a lot more and there are areas you wouldn't be able to jump to/from, changing where you would use jump freighters (or if you would use a gate or not). Thus range is extremely important to the performance of a jump freighter.
I am basing it on the Jita : Outer Passage run, which is fairly extreme.
You are correct that JF performance is reduced 100% for areas it can't reasonably be expected to reach at shorter ranges. The fact that JF performance is nerfed by an ENORMOUS 75% merely from fatigue without any range nerf means that CCP could reasonably exempt JF from the range nerf and still get what they want. |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
396
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:21:00 -
[432] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We would like nullsec to transition to a new status quo over time in as orderly a manner as possible, and maintaining as much of its current population as possible (or increasing it, obviously), while still actually achieving the new status quo. We're of the opinion that if we push the 5LY range through now, we'll lose a lot of nullsec players while they try to reach a new equilibrium, and it's possible that it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of nullsec overall, which is not an outcome we'd be happy with.
Based on the proposed changes, it would not seem like any of the issues related to this thought process were even considered before the devblog was released. You can't tell me it took the player base, the CSM or even Manny to determine that there might be tangential consequences related to these changes that would affect the broad markets or the carrying capacity of nullsec as it currently exists. The only thing he underestimated were the amount of null bear tears. That is the only reason the changes aren't being implemented right now. |
Neckbeard Nolyfe
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:23:00 -
[433] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
On Nullarbor's computer, currently.
Also, to everyone who was wondering whether or not I listened, I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. Whether or not I agreed with the concerns was an open question, but I hope it was obvious from my posting that I was paying attention!
Considering we are the customers and pay for your salary with playing the game we like, you sure as hell better be listening to our concerns and pay attention to what we say. ~lvl 60 paladin~ |
cherry popping
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:24:00 -
[434] - Quote
well i'm still diapointed about teh jf nerf but i'll be able to keep playing now(so i guess it's a good one)
just 1 thing i been wodnering about and keep in mindhis might be just since i'm a jf pilot hehe
if you want to make deep space harder why not increase the range?
i mean right now with the 10 ly i have to cross 4 regions that will have to be blue ..deals will be made/kept
the less regions a jf needs to cross the less need for cooperation
that is exactly what small groups would need to be able to have a fighting chance
the chance to not be forced to be part of the larger groups
just an idea
|
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
396
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:24:00 -
[435] - Quote
Neckbeard Nolyfe wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
On Nullarbor's computer, currently.
Also, to everyone who was wondering whether or not I listened, I read 4000 freaking posts by myself. Whether or not I agreed with the concerns was an open question, but I hope it was obvious from my posting that I was paying attention!
Considering we are the customers and pay for your salary with playing the game we like, you sure as hell better be listening to our concerns and pay attention to what we say. Entitled much ^ |
Brittney Calm
Escape from Darkness
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:24:00 -
[436] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:xttz wrote:Is anything happening to prevent supercaps being virtually invulnerable on low-sec gates? Currently the only way to tackle them requires a lock, and without non-targeted interdiction they're easily capable of jumping through a gate then jumping out. Discussing it. You could give hics the ability to give the enemy a weapons timer/block docking or jumping (via a script)? thus killing gate crashing AND creating a decent use for them over the ubiquitous dictors. HIC gets you at a gate/station - burn clear or kill it. Also solves station game asshattery.
This would have to be only against supers and capitals, as I can see HIC's being used to cause havic and could be worse then the asshattery with light interdictors and bubbling of stations and being able to re-dock immediately.
The part of this I dont see working, is if you have 20 supers on a gate with neuts, that hic wont be able to have his modules active for much of anything, and then there goes his tank and his point. Also who gets gate guns agro, does the hic get the agro because he agressed a super? if this is the case and you want gate to gate combat, then give the supers back their drones, or allow them to fit aka rapid light launchers or something to mix it up a little.
Also CCP greyscale one thought came up about supers and gates, I think the main problem people see is that you are going to have 200 man super fleets going gate to gate for lols. You should make the gate guns hit harder on capitals who choose to agro in lowsec, aka damage fit the class, also if the capital agro's on the gate, his other capital buddies should not be able to remote rep as he is flagged a criminal.
-BC
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
6391
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:26:00 -
[437] - Quote
When the goons are still crying but the rest of the known universe is happy with the changes, CCP must be doing something right.
Mr Epeen There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass! |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
402
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:27:00 -
[438] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:When the goons are still crying but the rest of the known universe is happy with the changes, CCP must be doing something right. Mr Epeen But goons aren't crying, CCP let them keep their jump bridge network. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:30:00 -
[439] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Lallante wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc. Its both. Unnerffing JFs just means the status quo for logistics is preserved and nullsec industry will never develop. Why bother building in nullsec when you can JF from Jita in safety? Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. It's not developing, because a) Highsec production is still easier to manage and handle than producing the same goods in null. If there is a safer alternative for production economy, the production economy will settle on the safer alternative as dangers and risks add to your costs and decrease your ability to compete in the free market b) Resources and minerals in nullsec are lacking, requiring massive amounts of certain minerals to be imported from empire Additionally, the stability of entire T2 module and ship market depends on manageable lines of logistics between null and empire, as the materials necessary for T2 is overwhelmingly provided by null. Wow - this was kind of very outch to read. Its not at all just about 'safety' - lets put the most important point out here: There is stuff that we are not supposed to build in certain areas - capitals. There is material that can only be found by mining moons - thus low and null sec. With the complete lockdown of every single valuable moon resource its complete bullshit to talk about something like a free market. Do i have to mention Hulkageddon to raise prices for technetium? So we are not talking about null not being able to participate in a free market but about trying to stop you to eliminate also the last bastion that allows others to participate in. So i think its pretty natural that if everyone is supposed to have a hard time to take anything in null it should be the other way around as well - thus making logistics a bit harder was a move that many felt was leveling the field and would be seen as incentive to stick to your 'natural' area.
The whole Grr Goons is quite pointless in your response, as I was not calling for a nerf of highsec production. I'm merely pointing out that the production economy will always pick the path that is safer and therefore, more competitive and profitable over the less safer and risk mitigating option. It's an axiom. Increasing the risks of logistics and production in null without adjusting for the loss of competitiveness and profitability is never going to facilitate a highly localized and independent null production economy.
|
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:30:00 -
[440] - Quote
cherry popping wrote:well i'm still diapointed about teh jf nerf but i'll be able to keep playing now(so i guess it's a good one)
just 1 thing i been wodnering about and keep in mindhis might be just since i'm a jf pilot hehe
if you want to make deep space harder why not increase the range?
i mean right now with the 10 ly i have to cross 4 regions that will have to be blue ..deals will be made/kept
the less regions a jf needs to cross the less need for cooperation
that is exactly what small groups would need to be able to have a fighting chance
the chance to not be forced to be part of the larger groups
just an idea
This is completely, totally true. |
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
1187
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:32:00 -
[441] - Quote
Tyr Dolorem wrote:BLOPS is still dead
How? They are getting a range increase and a 50% reduction in fatigue. Suck it up. This is more reasonable than the original prolosal. |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:33:00 -
[442] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Dwissi wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Lallante wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc. Its both. Unnerffing JFs just means the status quo for logistics is preserved and nullsec industry will never develop. Why bother building in nullsec when you can JF from Jita in safety? Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. It's not developing, because a) Highsec production is still easier to manage and handle than producing the same goods in null. If there is a safer alternative for production economy, the production economy will settle on the safer alternative as dangers and risks add to your costs and decrease your ability to compete in the free market b) Resources and minerals in nullsec are lacking, requiring massive amounts of certain minerals to be imported from empire Additionally, the stability of entire T2 module and ship market depends on manageable lines of logistics between null and empire, as the materials necessary for T2 is overwhelmingly provided by null. Wow - this was kind of very outch to read. Its not at all just about 'safety' - lets put the most important point out here: There is stuff that we are not supposed to build in certain areas - capitals. There is material that can only be found by mining moons - thus low and null sec. With the complete lockdown of every single valuable moon resource its complete bullshit to talk about something like a free market. Do i have to mention Hulkageddon to raise prices for technetium? So we are not talking about null not being able to participate in a free market but about trying to stop you to eliminate also the last bastion that allows others to participate in. So i think its pretty natural that if everyone is supposed to have a hard time to take anything in null it should be the other way around as well - thus making logistics a bit harder was a move that many felt was leveling the field and would be seen as incentive to stick to your 'natural' area. The whole Grr Goons is quite pointless in your response, as I was not calling for a nerf of highsec production. I'm merely pointing out that the production economy will always pick the path that is safer and therefore, more competitive and profitable over the less safer and risk mitigating option. It's an axiom. Increasing the risks of logistics and production in null without adjusting for the loss of competitiveness and profitability is never going to facilitate a highly localized and independent null production economy.
Agreed: the Amarr and Min outposts should be upgradeable to the point that the mats benefits outweigh the topes and the time required to import materials. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
248
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:33:00 -
[443] - Quote
Querns wrote:El Deuce wrote:Who wants to design the first fleet comp that'll fit inside a t1 hauler repackaged? If it's a Deep Space Transport (and you have Transport Ships 5, I think,) you can fit a packaged battleship inside its fleet hangar with about 10k to spare for modules and ammo. Nevermind that they align and warp like pigs.
You only need Transport Ships IV to be able to carry a packaged battleship, which takes 50km3, plus 10km3 room to spare for modules and ammo. |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:34:00 -
[444] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:Tyr Dolorem wrote:BLOPS is still dead How? They are getting a range increase and a 50% reduction in fatigue. Suck it up. This is more reasonable than the original prolosal. The only reason BLOPS is getting a range buff is because 4 ly is a rounder number than 3.75. |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
250
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:36:00 -
[445] - Quote
Iudicium Vastus wrote:Stabbed-align-fit T1 industrial being used as the new shuttle.
Please CCP, don't do the fatigue reduction on T1 haulers/industrials!!! If anything, possibly the T2 (Hell, Deep Space Transport has the title Deep Space right in its name) but NOT cheap minutes long training T1 industrials.
Your concern is quite pointless, as travel fit interceptors are already perfect and unstoppable shuttles already, besting every industrial in game by the virtues of being able to insta-align, having the best warp speed in game and at the same time, nullified. |
Nazri al Mahdi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
117
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:41:00 -
[446] - Quote
I just want to point out that Goons have proven to be the most intelligent posters on the topic of Phoebe, and if it keeps up I'm joining SA. |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
402
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:42:00 -
[447] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Iudicium Vastus wrote:Stabbed-align-fit T1 industrial being used as the new shuttle.
Please CCP, don't do the fatigue reduction on T1 haulers/industrials!!! If anything, possibly the T2 (Hell, Deep Space Transport has the title Deep Space right in its name) but NOT cheap minutes long training T1 industrials. Your concern is quite pointless, as travel fit interceptors are already perfect and unstoppable shuttles already, besting every industrial in game by the virtues of being able to insta-align, having the best warp speed in game and at the same time, nullified. I doubt interceptors are as fast as going through the jump bridge network with a 90% fatigue reduction, even faster if you use a cloaked transport ship. Plus you can smart bomb a fleet of interceptors at the gate. |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
24
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:42:00 -
[448] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Dwissi wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Lallante wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc. Its both. Unnerffing JFs just means the status quo for logistics is preserved and nullsec industry will never develop. Why bother building in nullsec when you can JF from Jita in safety? Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. It's not developing, because a) Highsec production is still easier to manage and handle than producing the same goods in null. If there is a safer alternative for production economy, the production economy will settle on the safer alternative as dangers and risks add to your costs and decrease your ability to compete in the free market b) Resources and minerals in nullsec are lacking, requiring massive amounts of certain minerals to be imported from empire Additionally, the stability of entire T2 module and ship market depends on manageable lines of logistics between null and empire, as the materials necessary for T2 is overwhelmingly provided by null. Wow - this was kind of very outch to read. Its not at all just about 'safety' - lets put the most important point out here: There is stuff that we are not supposed to build in certain areas - capitals. There is material that can only be found by mining moons - thus low and null sec. With the complete lockdown of every single valuable moon resource its complete bullshit to talk about something like a free market. Do i have to mention Hulkageddon to raise prices for technetium? So we are not talking about null not being able to participate in a free market but about trying to stop you to eliminate also the last bastion that allows others to participate in. So i think its pretty natural that if everyone is supposed to have a hard time to take anything in null it should be the other way around as well - thus making logistics a bit harder was a move that many felt was leveling the field and would be seen as incentive to stick to your 'natural' area. The whole Grr Goons is quite pointless in your response, as I was not calling for a nerf of highsec production. I'm merely pointing out that the production economy will always pick the path that is safer and therefore, more competitive and profitable over the less safer and risk mitigating option. It's an axiom. Increasing the risks of logistics and production in null without adjusting for the loss of competitiveness and profitability is never going to facilitate a highly localized and independent null production economy.
Lets start with this : Grr Goon - now you have what wasnt there before. It seems you missed it - 'you' was entire null as in one group regardless of size and name.
Requesting what you call 'loss of competitiveness and profitability' is the exact reason for my statement. Null has access to material that no one else has and can build and fly ship types no one else can unless in the same area. So you already have advantages - thats where your definition of balance is out of scope. Balancing the odds even more into that groups favour is what happens when the logistics changes dont happen, as you will not get any incentive to move your production out of 'our' area and start using 'your' space for what it was always meant for: To leave empire and live and rule there Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red?
My thanks to all Eve players for the continued forums drama - i had no idea how much i missed it while i was away :) |
Alp Khan
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
250
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:43:00 -
[449] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Hey guys, lets nerf sub caps ability to travel by anything but gates
The issue that everyone was adamant to complain about has always been capital projection. You are pretending as if subcaps were at the source of the problem, and acting surprised on top of that. Have you been missing the player reaction posts which are pointing out that how supers getting dropped on their cruiser gangs etc. is horribly broken? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2610
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:44:00 -
[450] - Quote
Alp Khan wrote:Iudicium Vastus wrote:Stabbed-align-fit T1 industrial being used as the new shuttle.
Please CCP, don't do the fatigue reduction on T1 haulers/industrials!!! If anything, possibly the T2 (Hell, Deep Space Transport has the title Deep Space right in its name) but NOT cheap minutes long training T1 industrials. Your concern is quite pointless, as travel fit interceptors are already perfect and unstoppable shuttles already, besting every industrial in game by the virtues of being able to insta-align, having the best warp speed in game and at the same time, nullified.
Wrong
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 78 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |