EVE Search - Stacking Penalty on Cargo Expansion

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Stacking Penalty on Cargo Expansion - or Making Armor Haulers Work

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 06:41:36 - [1] - Quote The problem: As anyone who has used a hauler knows, the only decent way to tank the ship is with shield modules. The only way to have any significant hauling capacity is to put on several cargo expanders in the low slots. If you have even 3 low slots without cargo expanders in them, you cut your max cargo by more than half. Now armor haulers can fit more cargo expanders due to having more low slots but they don't actually get more cargo space because their base cargo is reduced to compensate. This makes it so that fitting much of anything other than cargo expanders in your low slots will quickly gimp your hauling capacity. This leaves only the mid slots for customization. This isn't just frustrating for ship fitters, it is unfair to armor haulers, and it goes directly against the spirit of EVE Online in that every ship is supposed to have a wide array of viable fitting options. The only haulers that don't fall prey to this fitting travesty are the Gallente specialized haulers which bypass cargo expanders entirely by having specialized bays which aren't affected but are already very large. So those ships can freely fit anything they want in their low slots with no loss of hauling capacity while every other industrial becomes gimped if they use even two of their low slots for something other than cargo expansion. Adding stacking penalty as a solution: An easy solution to this is to give cargo expansion a stacking penalty, and increase the base cargo space of haulers to compensate such that max hauling capacity is unaffected. This way cargohold expanders are still important, but once you have a few on you might as well use the remaining low slots for something other than expanders. Armor industrials with several low slots will be able to fit some armor plates and hardeners without hurting their cargo space much, or can even fit a total armor tank with a significant reduction in hauling capacity, but without completely gimping their capacity. Here are some examples: 3x Expanded Cargohold II without stacking penalty: +107.267% cargo space 6x Expanded Cargohold II without stacking penalty: +329.597% cargo space 3x Expanded Cargohold II with stacking penalty: +82.774% cargo space 6x Expanded Cargohold II with stacking penalty: +104.414% cargo space Bestower without stacking penalty Bestower base cargo space (skill 5): 6000 m3 Bestower with 3x T2 expanders (skill 5): 12,436 m3 Bestower with 6x T2 expanders and 3x T1 cargo rigs (skill 5): 39,201 m3 Bestower with stacking penalty Bestower base cargo space (skill 5): 19,200 m3 Bestower with 3x T2 expanders (skill 5): 35,092 m3 Bestower with 6x T2 expanders (skill 5): 39,247 m3 Tayra without stacking penalty Tayra base cargo space (skill 5): 9125 m3 Tayra with 3x T2 expanders (skill 5): 18,913 m3 Tayra with 4x T2 expanders and 3x T1 cargo rigs (skill 5): 36,674 m3 Tayra with stacking penalty Tayra base cargo space (skill 5): 18,400 m3 Tayra with 3x T2 expanders (skill 5): 33,630 m3 Tayra with 4x T2 expanders (skill 5): 36,247 m3 Other changes just fall into place: Increase expansion amount of rigs to be on par with expander modules Allow the specialized hauling bays to be affected by cargo expansion and shrink some of them to compensate Increase battlecruiser and battleship cargohold space so that they have room for a significant amount of ammo/capacitor booster charges/loot/liquid ozone, so their cargoholds hold significantly more than destroyers Give freighters less fitting restriction without having to worry about them reaching 1,000,000 m3 Retriever/Mackinaw should have higher max ore hold; they will have reduced mining speed with cargo expanders instead of mining laser upgrades Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3143	Posted - 2014.12.03 07:49:45 - [2] - Quote Making cargo expanders stacking penalized so that haulers will have to fit a tank isn't going to accomplish anything. People will still fit a full rack of them just to squeeze out every last inefficient m-¡-¦ of cargo space and haulers won't ever mount a useful armor tank even if you fit them for one. Best not to fix what isn't broken and find a problem that actually exists.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 08:01:04 - [3] - Quote I don't see a problem with allowing people to fit only expanders, but I do see a problem with forcing them to. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 1019	Posted - 2014.12.03 08:20:56 - [4] - Quote And to compensate for the theoretical possibility of fitting more tank, all haulers need to lose raw HP regardless whether they fit some tank or not. Great.
Sigras Conglomo 983	Posted - 2014.12.03 08:24:34 - [5] - Quote Haulers are incapable of fitting a tank... it doesnt matter how much you nerf cargo expanders. a three slot tank on a hauler is literally worse than useless... at least if you had left the slots empty you could have saved yourself the ISK and trouble of buying the modules.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 08:53:14 - [6] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: And to compensate for the theoretical possibility of fitting more tank, all haulers need to lose raw HP regardless whether they fit some tank or not. Great. I don't think the tank you'd get for the space is worth much. The base HP on the tougher ones is a lot more than what you can add with shield extenders or armor plates. Also, the ones that would stand to gain the most HP out of this already have the least HP, because they have the most low slots. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 623	Posted - 2014.12.03 09:38:02 - [7] - Quote So now you want tanked haulers with cargo? Aren't all ships already antigank as hell with all the ehp buffs and ganking nerfs? Hello kitty online. GO! EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 09:47:16 - [8] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: So now you want tanked haulers with cargo? I want armor haulers to be on par with shield haulers. How much EHP they have is unimportant to this discussion and can be adjusted separately. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Danika Princip Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team 3015	Posted - 2014.12.03 10:29:28 - [9] - Quote So I take it you'd massivley increase the fitting stats too, since that's what's really stopping them from fitting a tank. If you want a tanky hauler, fly a DST.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2016	Posted - 2014.12.03 10:40:53 - [10] - Quote Bustard is way tankier than Impel for how much you can haul. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk

James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 323	Posted - 2014.12.03 10:44:58 - [11] - Quote Cargo expanders are currently stacking penalized. Making battleships worth the warp Tech 3 battleships. Moar battleships
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1384	Posted - 2014.12.03 14:41:21 - [12] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Bustard is way tankier than Impel for how much you can haul. I'm having a hard time slaving my shield boats.
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 167	Posted - 2014.12.03 15:08:46 - [13] - Quote yeah....no, they will still be ganked if you do anything but nano it and warp to 0 at every point. it takes less then 20 catalyst to gank a freighter, tanking might stop a thrasher but 1-2 cata will surely take a tanked indy out still...or in some cases the gankers in vexors will still take one "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 16	Posted - 2014.12.03 15:17:11 - [14] - Quote Well reasoned, rational, numbers crunched and a valid arguement, +1
Ceawlin Cobon-Han Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 40	Posted - 2014.12.03 15:53:05 - [15] - Quote It's an idea, it just isn't a good idea. -1
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 417	Posted - 2014.12.03 18:16:12 - [16] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Bustard is way tankier than Impel for how much you can haul. And your cargo stacking idea wouldn't affect that one bit.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2018	Posted - 2014.12.04 01:45:38 - [17] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Cargo expanders are currently stacking penalized. Do I really have to grace this with a response? Komi Toran wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Bustard is way tankier than Impel for how much you can haul. And your cargo stacking idea wouldn't affect that one bit. How do you figure? If you were able to put an 800mm armor plate, damage control, and 2x EANM on the Impel and still have near max cargo, then you'd be taking advantage of that armor resist bonus. Then the Impel would have a bit more EHP than the Bustard with about the same cargohold size. At current with fits like that, the Impel will have slightly more EHP but the Bustard will have over twice the cargohold. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 417	Posted - 2014.12.04 02:00:39 - [18] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Komi Toran wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Bustard is way tankier than Impel for how much you can haul. And your cargo stacking idea wouldn't affect that one bit. How do you figure? If you were able to put an 800mm armor plate, damage control, and 2x EANM on the Impel and still have near max cargo, then you'd be taking advantage of that armor resist bonus. Then the Impel would have a bit more EHP than the Bustard with about the same cargohold size. At current with fits like that, the Impel will have slightly more EHP but the Bustard will have over twice the cargohold. Just about everything about this is wrong. First, the Bustard can have an EHP significantly over 200k with T2 mods. The Impel cannot come close to that even with all lows and fitting devoted to armor. Second, and most important, cargo expanders don't affect fleet hangers.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2018	Posted - 2014.12.04 02:21:11 - [19] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: First, the Bustard can have an EHP significantly over 200k with T2 mods. The Impel cannot come close to that even with all lows and fitting devoted to armor. After checking EFT I see that the Bustard does actually net higher EHP than the Impel, but only slightly. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong with your Impel fit. The only advantage the Bustard has is being able to fit 2x LSE more easily than the Impel can fit 2x 800mm plate, while damage control and power diagnostic both go in low slots. Otherwise, LSE has just a smidge more HP than 800mm plate, and adaptive invuln has slightly more bonus resist. I didn't even try fitting a 1600mm plate to the Impel but it might boost the net EHP a bit further. Komi Toran wrote: Second, and most important, cargo expanders don't affect fleet hangers. Yeah, I forgot they had fleet hangars added. It's a lazy fix that ignores the real problem with cargo expander modules. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Sigras Conglomo 986	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:15:36 - [20] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Komi Toran wrote: Second, and most important, cargo expanders don't affect fleet hangers. Yeah, I forgot they had fleet hangars added. It's a lazy fix that ignores the real problem with cargo expander modules. "lazy fix" implies that there is a more difficult but more comprehensive fix that they could have implemented. Operating under the assumption that they wanted "tanky hauler" to remain a T2 ship specialization, please point out where the fleet hanger fix falls short.

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2018	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:30:08 - [21] - Quote Sigras wrote: Operating under the assumption that they wanted "tanky hauler" to remain a T2 ship specialization, please point out where the fleet hanger fix falls short. It offers no compromise between cargo space and tank. Regular industrials: cargo space -or- armor tank (either way you can have shield tank) Deep Space Transports: can have cargo space AND tank! Maximizing tank doesn't affect cargo space much. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 417	Posted - 2014.12.04 03:43:43 - [22] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: After checking EFT I see that the Bustard does actually net higher EHP than the Impel, but only slightly. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong with your Impel fit. Or it could be a problem with your Bustard fit. I get 239,246 EHP out of the Bustard, and 194,148 out of the Impel. And that's with an AB on both (otherwise the Bustard gets 322,516 EHP as that gets it a second LSE, and it doesn't really buy the Impel anything). You need a Slave set for the Impel to compete.
Sigras Conglomo 986	Posted - 2014.12.04 04:13:40 - [23] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Sigras wrote: Operating under the assumption that they wanted "tanky hauler" to remain a T2 ship specialization, please point out where the fleet hanger fix falls short. It offers no compromise between cargo space and tank. Regular industrials: cargo space -or- armor tank (either way you can have shield tank) Deep Space Transports: can have cargo space AND tank! Maximizing tank doesn't affect cargo space much. your proposal doesnt change that... it just gives regular industrials cargo + tank too... if in fact you consider the 3 slot pathetic 13,000 EHP on the bestower a tank...
Meyr Destructive Influence Northern Coalition. 365	Posted - 2014.12.04 05:22:51 - [24] - Quote Fitting options are a good thing, and provide pilots with more choices. +1 And, yes, that it might take FOUR Catalysts to gank a hauler instead of three just tears my heart to pieces. Poor babies, you might actually have to take a bit of care in selecting a target... AWWWWWWW!!! HTFU, YOU PANSIES! You had the most popular racial T1 haulers gift-wrapped for you to kill with little more than a mean look in their direction, and, when someone proposes making them a SLIGHTLY more difficult target, you cry into your beer. Contract me your stuff, and go play Day-Z.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2022	Posted - 2014.12.04 06:03:55 - [25] - Quote waiting for the incoming "slight buffs to industrial tank pushes them ever closer to carrier durability!" or "it wouldn't matter if they had carrier durability, gankers still gonna gank" Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 93	Posted - 2014.12.04 08:37:25 - [26] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: Reaver Glitterstim wrote: After checking EFT I see that the Bustard does actually net higher EHP than the Impel, but only slightly. I'm not sure what you're doing wrong with your Impel fit. Or it could be a problem with your Bustard fit. I get 239,246 EHP out of the Bustard, and 194,148 out of the Impel. And that's with an AB on both (otherwise the Bustard gets 322,516 EHP as that gets it a second LSE, and it doesn't really buy the Impel anything). You need a Slave set for the Impel to compete. I've meddled with the fits for both these ships and find the Impel can score a slightly larger tank when both are using a propulsion module. I have an Impel fit at 275,000 EHP with all T2 modules, a T2 Bustard from my experience cannot match that with a prop mod fit. Without a prop mod things get a bit... wacky. With lower tier modules the Bustard comes out on top but with high-end deadspace modules the Impel takes the lead again. This is probably because the Impel uses an extra slot for it's tank, meaning the overheat bonus is more substantial as it rises with increased module tier. With a set of Slaves the Impel is always the winner. These are my findings at least. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2023	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:02:25 - [27] - Quote The real point is that they are reasonably similar in EHP when fit for full tank, but very different when fit for full cargo. With a stacking penalty on cargo expansion, they would have similar tank either way. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Andrew Indy Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming 114	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:20:59 - [28] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: The real point is that they are reasonably similar in EHP when fit for full tank, but very different when fit for full cargo. With a stacking penalty on cargo expansion, they would have similar tank either way. well i thinks thats what the OP is saying. Not that we need tankier Haulers but that he wants some sort of comparison between shield and Armor Haulers. If you compare the Tayra to the Bestower with max cargo fits the Tayra has almost as much cargo but with almost double the EHP and its not like the Tayra does not make up for the lower cargo hold in other ways as well. Mainly a faster align and higher speed. With 2 MSEs and a 10MN AB (plus invlus for the Tayra) you get about 11k vs 6k EHP and 37 vs 39k m3. I'm not saying that the PO's suggestion is the correct fix or that its worth fixing (give dev time) just that I recognize the issue.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2023	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:26:23 - [29] - Quote Thank you, finally someone who understands what I'm saying! P.S. I'm the OP. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 419	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:26:25 - [30] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: I've meddled with the fits for both these ships and find the Impel can score a slightly larger tank when both are using a propulsion module. I have an Impel fit at 275,000 EHP with all T2 modules, a T2 Bustard from my experience cannot match that with a prop mod fit. I'm very curious about that fit. Two 800mm plates, two trimarks, three hardeners, a damage control, and reactor don't get me anywhere near that. What modules are you using to make up the 80,000 EHP difference? And then what is it once you throw Slaves on it???

Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2023	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:34:55 - [31] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: I'm very curious about that fit. Two 800mm plates, two trimarks, three hardeners, a damage control, and reactor don't get me anywhere near that. What modules are you using to make up the 80,000 EHP difference? And then what is it once you throw Slaves on it??? I believe he is overheating the hardeners. With T2 fittings, overheating, and a boosting ship (no implants), I can get the Bustard to 351,811 EHP. But with no fleet boosts, overheating or implants, it's only 178,549 EHP. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 419	Posted - 2014.12.04 09:36:30 - [32] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I believe he is overheating the hardeners. That still leaves an 80,000 EHP gap, because I'm overheating them as well.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 94	Posted - 2014.12.04 10:53:50 - [33] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: I've meddled with the fits for both these ships and find the Impel can score a slightly larger tank when both are using a propulsion module. I have an Impel fit at 275,000 EHP with all T2 modules, a T2 Bustard from my experience cannot match that with a prop mod fit. I'm very curious about that fit. Two 800mm plates, two trimarks, three hardeners, a damage control, and reactor don't get me anywhere near that. What modules are you using to make up the 80,000 EHP difference? And then what is it once you throw Slaves on it??? 284,500 EHP and aligns in 10s due to the MWD. 453,000 EHP with a set of Slaves. [Impel, EHP High-Sec T2] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty mid slot] Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 2x Armor Thermic Hardener II 2x Armor EM Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Armor Explosive Hardener II 2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II 1000x Nanite Repair Paste With an extra 40 million ISK in modules (to save CPU), it looks like this instead, which is capable of the cloak-MWD maneuver. Same EHP numbers. [Impel, EHP High-Sec Cheap] [empty high slot] Improved Cloaking Device II Small Capacitor Booster II (Navy Cap Booster 400) Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II True Sansha Armor Thermic Hardener Armor Thermic Hardener II 2x True Sansha Armor EM Hardener True Sansha Armor Kinetic Hardener Armor Explosive Hardener II 2x Medium Trimark Armor Pump II 1000x Nanite Repair Paste 20x Navy Cap Booster 400 ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2023	Posted - 2014.12.04 12:11:19 - [34] - Quote Komi Toran wrote: Edit: And boosting ship? Hell, let's just throw a group of 10 logi ships in there as well. If you need 2 - 2.5 billion in implants and a booster to compete with the Bustard, the Bustard wins. I was only pointing out that folks weren't being specific enough about what they used or didn't use, and that probably had something to do with the large difference in figures. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance) "What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
Komi Toran Paragon Trust The Bastion 420	Posted - 2014.12.04 16:09:08 - [35] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: 284,500 EHP and aligns in 10 due to the MWD. 453,000 EHP with a set of Slaves. Very nice! Fitting saved. Only change I'd make on the first, since there's no cloak, is an AB for a 7.5 sec align time.
Andrew Indy Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming 115	Posted - 2014.12.05 02:03:12 - [36] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Thank you, finally someone who understands what I'm saying! P.S. I'm the OP. I was thinking that an easier fix would be to just drop the tank on the shield haulers, that way the tank would be the same and everyone can fit bulk heads ect to add to the overall EHP if you want to gain tank. Still not perfect.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.