| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ohmy Fugod
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2006.10.16 21:53:00 -
[61]
I should probably acquaint myself with the Slave set case before posting, however, with the crystal set I see the following facts:
1) Not everyone has them. Heck not even I would buy them, even if I had the cash.
2) Probably no one uses them for pvp, not even a low grade one. And IF somebody does, then odds are it's just one or two "somebodies". So I don't see how it affects PVP balance at all, which takes us to the last point;
3) It can be safely said that it would only affect mission running. Now, I do run lvl 4's quite succesfully without them.
So why would you spend time working on code to nerf something that ain't affecting the whole game, when there're so many other *way* more important issues to take care of first?
I won't deny there must be some folks with a full set reaping it in like crazy. But man, then it's up to CCP to introduce better challenges then. They got what they deserve, so let em benefit from it, and if they still believe a handful of folks affects the Eve economy even more than, *cough* macrominers, then nerf or remove the set from the game, but give them their isk back.
If the Slave set nerf was just as bad, then you definitely deserved some sort of compensation as well. No one should be a martyr here, it's just a game and everybody's playing time deserves it's respect.
To conclude: It's very important to notice how different this nerf is from any other. It's not just a combat rules change, it's something that would directly affect the game economy of probably a handful players, and most probably a bunch of loyal-to-the-game folks who stuck through their ups and downs while saving those billions to become great at it.
Coldly nerfing the set would, in some part, mean "we don't care about long lasting customers" as well as any other legitimate reason they might have.
Just like they did with all those guys who spent MONTHS doing nothing but training for carriers, to have their usefulness halved within a single day.
Definitely not fair.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Quod Natura non da, Salamantica non praesta |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 22:25:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: dalman
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: dalman
Ofc balance is to be based on T2 stuff.
But how do you decide the stats on the pimped stuff?
Not like it is at the moment.
Surely you must see the problem.
Armor tank is 2 reps: x+x= 2x
Shield tank is booster * amp: y*z= yz
And per T2 balance 2x = yz
Then you pimp all the stuff with 1.5.
And it becomes 1.5x + 1.5x = 3x
And 1.5y * 1.5z = 2.25 yz.
And whoop deee doo all of a sudden shield tanking is 50% better than armor tanking.
The pimped boosters, amps and crystal sets all need to be nerfed a bit.
They are not balanced at all the way it is atm. Period.
3x is not 50% better then 2.25 yz though. it's 33% better.
If you're gifted enough to know that 3/2.25 = 1.333 I'd figure you'd also realize you were supposed to calculate 2.25/1.5 = 1.5 
ah good point but that would be wrong to compare a tank that uses 1 slot with a tank that uses 2 slots. Yes a 2-slot tank is better then a 1 slot tank, surprise surprise...
If you want to compare a shield tank with amp with an armor tank use 2 slots in both cases.
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug... oh well Rabble rabble ra...(meh) |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Cereal Killerz
Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 22:41:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Vmir Gallahasen on 16/10/2006 22:44:59
Can't help myself 
2 slot Shield Tank (XL II + Amp):
780 hp over 5s = 156 hp/s
400 cap (-10%) over 5s = 72 cap/s
2 slot Armor Tank (LAR II x 2):
800 hp over 11.25s * 2 = 142 hp/s
400 cap over 11.25s * 2 = 71 cap/s
So at this point, we know that a shield tank boosts (156/142) 9.85% better than a similar max-skills armor tank for (72/71) 1.4% more cap. Now let's pretend we plug in relevant implants to the armor and shield tank pilots (slave and crystals) and recalculate tanks:
2 slot Shield Tank (XL II + Amp + Crystal set):
note: Shield tank now boosts 53.88% better
1199 hp over 5s = 240 hp/s
400 cap (-10%) over 5s = 72 cap/s
2 slot Armor Tank (LAR II x 2 + Armor Tank):
note: Slave set has no effect upon armor tank HP/S
800 hp over 11.25s * 2 = 142 hp/s
400 cap over 11.25s * 2 = 71 cap/s
Now we see that the shield tank boosts (240/142) 69% better than a similar armor tank for (72/71) 1.4% more capacitor/s. This is crap. If you think slaves and crystals are balanced, then explain why I want to live 10 seconds longer in pvp instead of being able to tank the damage permanently?
P.S. Shield tanks take 1.4% more cap with good skills than an armor tank ship but don't forget that most armor tank ships need cap to fire guns, and most shield tank ships don't.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 22:55:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
...
Now we see that the shield tank boosts (240/142) 69% better than a similar armor tank for (72/71) 1.4% more capacitor/s. This is crap. If you think slaves and crystals are balanced, then explain why I want to live 10 seconds longer in pvp instead of being able to tank the damage permanently?
P.S. Shield tanks take 1.4% more cap with good skills than an armor tank ship but don't forget that most armor tank ships need cap to fire guns, and most shield tank ships don't.
So ask for a boost to slave set instead of a nerf to crystal set?
That would put the numbers at 240hp/s for 72 cap/s for shield and 218.62 hp/s for 71 cap/s for armor tank. Shield tank then is only 9% better.
BTW you forget about the Vulture, Eagle, Moa, Harpy, Rokh(soonÖ)? All shield tankers that need cap for their guns.
If crystal set is getting nerfed because of previous experiences from the tourney. I think that is a silly reason. Just don't allow implants in tourney then.
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug... oh well Rabble rabble ra...(meh) |
dalman
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2006.10.16 23:36:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: dalman
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
Originally by: dalman
Ofc balance is to be based on T2 stuff.
But how do you decide the stats on the pimped stuff?
Not like it is at the moment.
Surely you must see the problem.
Armor tank is 2 reps: x+x= 2x
Shield tank is booster * amp: y*z= yz
And per T2 balance 2x = yz
Then you pimp all the stuff with 1.5.
And it becomes 1.5x + 1.5x = 3x
And 1.5y * 1.5z = 2.25 yz.
And whoop deee doo all of a sudden shield tanking is 50% better than armor tanking.
The pimped boosters, amps and crystal sets all need to be nerfed a bit.
They are not balanced at all the way it is atm. Period.
3x is not 50% better then 2.25 yz though. it's 33% better.
If you're gifted enough to know that 3/2.25 = 1.333 I'd figure you'd also realize you were supposed to calculate 2.25/1.5 = 1.5
ah good point but that would be wrong to compare a tank that uses 1 slot with a tank that uses 2 slots. Yes a 2-slot tank is better then a 1 slot tank, surprise surprise...
If you want to compare a shield tank with amp with an armor tank use 2 slots in both cases.
By ghad learn to read.
2 repairers vs booster*amp = balanced at T2 stage.
And when CCP pimps them, the repairers gets 1.5x as good, but the booster and amp each gets 1.5x as good and as they're multiplied the end result is 2.25x as good.
As in, T2 armor vs shield tank is balanced.
With pimped stuff the shield tank is "pimped twice".
And then you add in the current Crystal implants and all of a sudden the shield tank has been pimped three times, making it 1.5*1.5*1.5 = 3.375x as good as the balanced T2 tank while the armor only is pimped once.
Am I forced to have any regret?
I've become the lie, beautiful and free
In my righteous own mind
I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 00:13:00 -
[66]
Originally by: dalman
By ghad learn to read.
2 repairers vs booster*amp = balanced at T2 stage.
And when CCP pimps them, the repairers gets 1.5x as good, but the booster and amp each gets 1.5x as good and as they're multiplied the end result is 2.25x as good.
As in, T2 armor vs shield tank is balanced.
With pimped stuff the shield tank is "pimped twice".
And then you add in the current Crystal implants and all of a sudden the shield tank has been pimped three times, making it 1.5*1.5*1.5 = 3.375x as good as the balanced T2 tank while the armor only is pimped once.
Armor tank *and* shield tank are both pimped once per module(you use dual rep tank in your example). What you are claiming is that the shield booster is pimped twice while armor repper is pimped only once. That's bull. To get to the "pimped twice" You're using 2 modules. so compare it to 2 pimped modules not one.
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug... oh well Rabble rabble ra...(meh) |
Snikkt
Gallente
Time Cube Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 00:28:00 -
[67]
Originally by: dalman
Originally by: Roxanna Kell
i just hope people would STFU with the overpowred shield tank talk.
the damn implants cost billions.
OMG!!!!
Arrrrghhh.
I just replied two posts above yours.
Items are not good because they cost alot.
Items cost alot because they are good.
Try to get already.
Good things cost good money.
-------------------
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
My opinions are not my corporations.
|
dalman
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 06:50:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
actual numbers of pimped armor tank and pimped shield tank in post 67.
(interestingly the actual percentage that shield tank is better over armor tank is much closer to my initial number(which was attained in a semi brain fart though  ) then to your 50% value.
Yes, pith shieldtanking (without implants) only boosts 36% more than best armor and not 50%.
As I never used any exact numbers.
Because my sole point was to highlight how stupidly it's been designed, resulting in overpowered shield tanks.
Am I forced to have any regret?
I've become the lie, beautiful and free
In my righteous own mind
I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Cereal Killerz
Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 07:50:00 -
[69]
Quote:
So ask for a boost to slave set instead of a nerf to crystal set?
I don't want a boost to slave set, because I am 100% opposed to having an "uber" implant set. I don't want to hear about "raids" on a complex and Sword-of-a-Thousand-Truths like pirate implants as they are. All the pirate implants are too good in my opinion, with perhaps an exception to the halo set which isn't widely used anyway.
Implants are meant to give you a bit of an edge, not give you an automatic win button.
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 08:43:00 -
[70]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
I'd rather see the Slave set get changed to an equivilant to the Crystal set, then any changes be made to the Crystals.
It is not a case of Slave versus Crystal.
These are the cases:
* Crystal versus none
* Crystal versus Slave
* Crystal versus Halo
* Crystal versus Snake
* Crystal versus Talisman
* Crystal versus +5 set
* Crystal versus +4 set
etc. etc.
In essence, it's a question of "how good can an implant set be, when the drop rates and availability is similar to other, not quite as good, implants?" as well as "how good can an implant set be allowed to be?"
Tuxford's team has indicated that their answer is that a standard amount pirate implant set boost to tanking is too good - regardless if it is shield or armour or hull*.
And I agree with them.
* Hull tanking can be made as good as a medium shield booster before implants! Omg!
-
What am I listening to? |
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 11:30:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Rawthorm on 17/10/2006 11:33:56
Im quite amazed about all the referances to it being over powered, when its only the case for mission runners/npc'ers who can dedicate their mids to a total tank. This set has always allowed me to drop my amp for a scrambler and has never overpowered my raven but simply allowed it to compete in the field.
I mean at heart all this implant set is, is a 2.4 billion ISK shield amp...one we wont get refunded if they nerf it.
|
Choi
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 11:56:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Choi on 17/10/2006 11:59:04
Originally by: Rawthorm
I mean at heart all this implant set is, is a 2.4 billion ISK shield amp...one we wont get refunded if they nerf it.
good point rawthorm
Pith B type amp 400 mill ~41% shield boost
Crystal Set 2.7 bill ~ 53% shield boost
yea.... CCCP should just take shield tanking out of the game. They are way to overpowered, especially if you wanna pimp out your ship with all faction gear that would still die to nos and ecm and or a ganksquad.
And correct me if im wrong but the crystal set stacks with the other amps too?
|
Vmir Gallahasen
Gallente
Cereal Killerz
Chimaera Pact
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:31:00 -
[73]
Quote:
This set has always allowed me to drop my amp for a scrambler
Your tacklers should be scrambling for you so this isn't really needed, unless you're solo'ing in a bs and think you should for some reason be a solo pwnmobile. Also, it irritates me that you can fit a scrambler, have an implant set effectively give you another mid slot+, and have a gank fitting in your low slots. And yet people are still here whining that it's unfair you're going to be brought in line with other pirate implants (don't forget your tank will still be far above standard).
Signature filesize exceeds max limit of 24000 bytes. Mail us if you have questions -Eldo Davip
New sig coming soonÖ
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 17:54:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
This set has always allowed me to drop my amp for a scrambler
Your tacklers should be scrambling for you so this isn't really needed, unless you're solo'ing in a bs and think you should for some reason be a solo pwnmobile. Also, it irritates me that you can fit a scrambler, have an implant set effectively give you another mid slot+, and have a gank fitting in your low slots. And yet people are still here whining that it's unfair you're going to be brought in line with other pirate implants (don't forget your tank will still be far above standard).
Oh so armor tanking people can have their free low slot(slave set is like a 1600mm plate on thron, only without the mass penalty) but shield tankers can't? Also you can't always assume you'll have tacklers at your disposal however, on occasion you're forced to go with just bs as you lack the pilots to match the other group and have tacklers. Besides if you're within 20k of the targets anyway, why not get as much scrambling power as possible...
Regardless, I still think it's silly to push through this nerf just because of performance of crystal set in a tourney that doesn't even come close to pvp on TQ, from the comment LeMonde made about it, that seemed to be the case.
I'm also concerned about how it will affect myself(minmatar) and how it will affect other things. Like for example, sleipnir which is by virtue of the bonus "forced" to tank shield actively(doesn't mean it can't fit a passive tank though, but you'd ignore a good bonus) won't benefit (actively) from the new crystals. On the other hand, Ferox and by extension the Vulture and the Nighthawk which with their resist bonus don't have to ignore a bonus to have a passive tank will get a 30-50% boost of their passive tank. Vagabond with the new crystals, lots and lots of shield hp. Jaguar, the same.
Potential solution to the current Recon cloak and cyno bug... oh well Rabble rabble ra...(meh) |
Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 18:28:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
This set has always allowed me to drop my amp for a scrambler
Your tacklers should be scrambling for you so this isn't really needed, unless you're solo'ing in a bs and think you should for some reason be a solo pwnmobile. Also, it irritates me that you can fit a scrambler, have an implant set effectively give you another mid slot+, and have a gank fitting in your low slots. And yet people are still here whining that it's unfair you're going to be brought in line with other pirate implants (don't forget your tank will still be far above standard).
So you dont fit a scrambler on your mega or apoc then? Sramblers are essential on a BS in small scale combat because more often than not your tackler cant last the duration and has to bail. He should only need to get the tackle until your BS can take over.
As for the "free mid slot item", what about the no penilty plate the slaves give you? Have you ever seen what a Neutron fitting mega can do to you with 2 "vurtual 1600mm plates" that the slave set gives you? Not to mention the boost safety barrier they give to hacs command ships and recons.
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 18:39:00 -
[76]
Edited by: LUKEC on 17/10/2006 18:42:26
Edited by: LUKEC on 17/10/2006 18:41:04
Originally by: Rawthorm
Originally by: Vmir Gallahasen
Quote:
This set has always allowed me to drop my amp for a scrambler
Your tacklers should be scrambling for you so this isn't really needed, unless you're solo'ing in a bs and think you should for some reason be a solo pwnmobile. Also, it irritates me that you can fit a scrambler, have an implant set effectively give you another mid slot+, and have a gank fitting in your low slots. And yet people are still here whining that it's unfair you're going to be brought in line with other pirate implants (don't forget your tank will still be far above standard).
So you dont fit a scrambler on your mega or apoc then? Sramblers are essential on a BS in small scale combat because more often than not your tackler cant last the duration and has to bail. He should only need to get the tackle until your BS can take over.
As for the "free mid slot item", what about the no penilty plate the slaves give you? Have you ever seen what a Neutron fitting mega can do to you with 2 "vurtual 1600mm plates" that the slave set gives you? Not to mention the boost safety barrier they give to hacs command ships and recons.
"2 virtual plates" are exactly 3520 armor (mega after skills has cca 6600 armor, so you get 0.53 more... )
For comparison, 1600mm rolled tungsten gives 4200 armor after skills.
So based on your logic, you are complaining implants better than best officer boost amp are inferior to implants between 2. and 3. named t1 plate?
|
Choi
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 19:34:00 -
[77]
Originally by: LUKEC
"2 virtual plates" are exactly 3520 armor (mega after skills has cca 6600 armor, so you get 0.53 more... )
For comparison, 1600mm rolled tungsten gives 4200 armor after skills.
So based on your logic, you are complaining implants better than best officer boost amp are inferior to implants between 2. and 3. named t1 plate?
boosting % and plates are 2 different things. Plates stack every time you put those 1600mm rolled tungstens u get that amount of armor and IIRC the slaves will stack after you put more 1600's on. So after you put that 1600 plates on and your mega has 10k armor with skills and the mod the slaves should pop it up to 15k and so on. The shield amping is based on percent, which has a stacking penalty that takes the crystal set into account.
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 19:41:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Choi
Originally by: LUKEC
"2 virtual plates" are exactly 3520 armor (mega after skills has cca 6600 armor, so you get 0.53 more... )
For comparison, 1600mm rolled tungsten gives 4200 armor after skills.
So based on your logic, you are complaining implants better than best officer boost amp are inferior to implants between 2. and 3. named t1 plate?
boosting % and plates are 2 different things. Plates stack every time you put those 1600mm rolled tungstens u get that amount of armor and IIRC the slaves will stack after you put more 1600's on. So after you put that 1600 plates on and your mega has 10k armor with skills and the mod the slaves should pop it up to 15k and so on. The shield amping is based on percent, which has a stacking penalty that takes the crystal set into account.
So you are telling me that... raven with t2 xl booster, boost amp and crystals won't boost 600x1.3x1.53?
(1.53 beeing crystal set factor)
Or will the stacking penalty kick in once you fit 2 boost amps?
Well also mass will go up and there isn't many ships that easily fit more than 2 plates anyway(ok lolergeddon with 5x plates, 3x hs II ... ). Like you can't fit more than 2 amps effectively(effectively = there can be better effect achieved by using other modules of similar price)
Yes i'm well aware what your point is, but plates and pimp wagons are ugh... WTB chelm's modified plate...
|
Choi
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 19:55:00 -
[79]
Originally by: LUKEC
So you are telling me that... raven with t2 xl booster, boost amp and crystals won't boost 600x1.3x1.53?
(1.53 beeing crystal set factor)
Or will the stacking penalty kick in once you fit 2 boost amps?
Well also mass will go up and there isn't many ships that easily fit more than 2 plates anyway(ok lolergeddon with 5x plates, 3x hs II ... ). Like you can't fit more than 2 amps effectively(effectively = there can be better effect achieved by using other modules of similar price)
Yes i'm well aware what your point is, but plates and pimp wagons are ugh... WTB chelm's modified plate...
yes more than 2 amps is pointless and a waste or in this case including the crystals in your head fitting more than 1 amp is far less effective. Basicly its a nicer amp that frees up a midslot.
Essentially the slaves and crystals are not comparable because they are performing two different functions for two different types of tanks.
And I do enjoy my pimp wagons so yes, where's my 1600 corpum-A type plate for my alt? CCP GET ON IT 
|
Ampoliros
Phantom Knights
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 20:14:00 -
[80]
I'd just like to point out, though, that aside from faction/deadspace gear, its much easier to get a perma-sustainable armor tank than a shield tank.
5x PDSs and 2x cap recharger 2s still isn't sustainable with an XL SB2 (on a raven/scorp), whereas 2-3x CPRs and 4-5x cap recharger (best named) will run 2x LAR2s forever.
------------------------------------
Tech2 Superweapon ftw:
|
LUKEC
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 21:01:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Ampoliros
I'd just like to point out, though, that aside from faction/deadspace gear, its much easier to get a perma-sustainable armor tank than a shield tank.
5x PDSs and 2x cap recharger 2s still isn't sustainable with an XL SB2 (on a raven/scorp), whereas 2-3x CPRs and 4-5x cap recharger (best named) will run 2x LAR2s forever.
You don't need permatank for anything. Not that you will tank all that well with all those relays.
Ps.only battleship with viable permatank dual lar is apoc.
|
dalman
Finite Horizon
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 21:51:00 -
[82]
Edited by: dalman on 17/10/2006 21:53:23
Originally by: Choi
Originally by: LUKEC
So you are telling me that... raven with t2 xl booster, boost amp and crystals won't boost 600x1.3x1.53?
(1.53 beeing crystal set factor)
Or will the stacking penalty kick in once you fit 2 boost amps?
Well also mass will go up and there isn't many ships that easily fit more than 2 plates anyway(ok lolergeddon with 5x plates, 3x hs II ... ). Like you can't fit more than 2 amps effectively(effectively = there can be better effect achieved by using other modules of similar price)
Yes i'm well aware what your point is, but plates and pimp wagons are ugh... WTB chelm's modified plate...
yes more than 2 amps is pointless and a waste or in this case including the crystals in your head fitting more than 1 amp is far less effective. Basicly its a nicer amp that frees up a midslot.
Essentially the slaves and crystals are not comparable because they are performing two different functions for two different types of tanks.
And I do enjoy my pimp wagons so yes, where's my 1600 corpum-A type plate for my alt? CCP GET ON IT
Eh, the implants aren't subject to stacking penalty.
Your reasoning about how many to fit is flawed.
On the other hand, it is usually a bad idea to fit more than one amp anyway, as you've also got those invulnerability fields that... errr.... makes you invulnerable.
And btw, a 'Corpum' mod would be a medium sized mod, not a 1600 :p
Am I forced to have any regret?
I've become the lie, beautiful and free
In my righteous own mind
I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Choi
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.10.17 22:08:00 -
[83]
Originally by: dalman
[
Eh, the implants aren't subject to stacking penalty.
Your reasoning about how many to fit is flawed.
On the other hand, it is usually a bad idea to fit more than one amp anyway, as you've also got those invulnerability fields that... errr.... makes you invulnerable.
And btw, a 'Corpum' mod would be a medium sized mod, not a 1600 :p
yup your right never noticed how small the penalty was to a second amp. just noticed that there was a small one and chalked it up to the implants.
oh and btw I would make corpum the large mods
and btw 
|
Grey Area
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.18 20:33:00 -
[84]
Originally by: inSpirAcy
Really, just stop posting in this thread. 
In case you didn't know, no one actually EVER takes advice given in forums.
Originally by: inSpirAcy
Your dire seriousness about the whole matter is clouding your ability to see humour for what it is, and it's making you look really stupid. 
I may LOOK stupid. I fear you may have taken things somewhat further.
---
Monty Pythons spoof of the EVE Forums;
Palin: "Is this the right room for an argument?"
Cleese: "I've told you once." |
B0rn2KiLL
MicroFunks
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 21:52:00 -
[85]
couldnt give a rats ass about mission runners, or mega shield tankers
all it says to me is cheaper t2 implants :)
bring it on wee.
<3
---
new sig, Hijack it and ill eat u.
*Imaran hands B0rn2KiLL a fork - Come get some!11
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |