EVE Search - Marauders: Golem Bonus Adjustment

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Marauders: Golem Bonus Adjustment

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
scorchlikeshiswhiskey Totally Abstract O X I D E 384	Posted - 2015.03.25 21:55:49 - [31] - Quote Not a fan of changing the Golem EXCEPT with the possibility of addressing what Catherine mentioned, that is the disparity in ranges of TP's and cruise missiles. I've used my Golem for PvE a lot and, while torps can be cool, I have never fitted a single torp launcher to my Golem. The combo of range and application issues plaguing them precludes their use, at least in my opinion, for anything other than SB's or the ever glorious structure grind. This means that, obviously, my Golem makes use of cruise missiles and I have, on rare occasion, noticed the effect of the relatively short TP range. Thus, I do not think it would be entirely out of line to modify the TP bonus to include a range increase as well, nothing stupid but ~10% might not be the worst thing to happen. Also, I just want to mention, that long range cruise missile travel time IS NOT A FUN FEATURE. Missiles are fleet weapons, they're best when they have people working together to maximize their effect, and using long range cruise missiles in a fleet situation can be an exercise in throwing ISK out the space-porthole as you watch your missiles almost hit before you lose lock because the gun boats killed it from the same range instantly. That concludes todays missile post, if you made it this far thank you and congratulations, you win a cookie. All prizes can be collected in the wreckage of your nearest Dev ship. Have a nice day
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4215	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:54:36 - [32] - Quote A 25% explosion radius bonus + one target painter is roughly equivalent to the effect of a pair of target painters (perhaps a little better). At 100km, target painters are only about 50% effective - so the 25% explosion radius would actually be more beneficial beyond ranges of 100km. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4215	Posted - 2015.03.25 23:57:43 - [33] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: I've used my Golem for PvE a lot and, while torps can be cool, I have never fitted a single torp launcher to my Golem. The combo of range and application issues plaguing them precludes their use, at least in my opinion, for anything other than SB's or the ever glorious structure grind. I personally like using torpedoes on my Golem. I prefer the faster rate of fire and damage application is almost as good as cruise missiles. I think the damage application for torpedoes could be improved, but as they're also closely tied to Stealth Bombers, I'm not entirely sure how much can be changed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 48	Posted - 2015.03.26 00:23:52 - [34] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: "Easy mode"? Every other single Marauder does more raw DPS, has more drone capability and can run both a shield or an armour tank. If you run an armour tank on a Golem you give up about 25% of your theoretical DPS. In fact, all the other Marauders can run a shield tank with three passive tracking enhancers for easy "F1" mode. By comparison, with the Golem you need to run rigors and a minimum of 2 target painters just to get decent damage application against cruisers. This is in addition to lead time while you're counting volleys to avoiding losing even more DPS. That's a lot of micromanagement. And no, target painters do not remedy problems with missile damage application against frigates and drones - regardless of range. You need rigors, target painters and usually webs. With the proposed change, the Golem will have only slightly better base damage application over a Navy Raven. Considering T2 Marauders are supposed to be specialized, this isn't that much of a stretch. ah yeah easy mod, you can literally drop in to sieg hit anything on grid regardless of range, out tank most things, and force anything off or kill anything if you have good tacklers. and lets face it why was every working marauder in AT12 a golem, It deals unavoidable damage out to the end of the grid, and has a very sustainable tank and very massive one at that. In not sure why people complain about missiles dealing bad damage to fast and small targets, when larger guns will straight up miss them in most situation.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 492	Posted - 2015.03.26 02:19:05 - [35] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Zan Shiro wrote: personal preference here as always but 4 bcu's stacked is not really maximizing. This for any damage mod imo...I don't run more than 3 gyro, mag stab, etc either. Factor in stacking penalty....I generally find a more support-ish mod a better drop in overall. Most PvE fits will have 4 damage modules. I agree that the 4th module doesn't typically add much, but a 4th T2 damage module that gives you an additional 5% is still cheaper than an implant. If missiles had a ballistic enhancement module I would definitely agree that would be more beneficial. Quote: Why not digging the 1 mid slot for the low. Being nice and tp is removed for your bonus there'd be quite a few mods that would be better off long run if mids stayed the same. Sebo res scripted comes to mind. Faster locks, faster to get targets to fire. Hell...tp. With the boost to missile TP unbonused even after the change would be of more help. Hopes your drones kill frig rats faster at any rate. With an extra low you could run a signal amplifier, nanofiber, power diagnostic or even an armor tank. You should go for a signal amp instead of that 4th bcu (assuming it would get a 5th low in this instance). I run this setup for my raven and along with two sebos it shoots and targets out past 200km.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4217	Posted - 2015.03.26 02:21:21 - [36] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: You should go for a signal amp instead of that 4th bcu (assuming it would get a 5th low in this instance). I run this setup for my raven and along with two sebos it shoots and targets out past 200km. Possibly. I really abhor cruise missiles at this point in time. It's a combination of the slow rate of fire and long lead time to impact. I'm enjoying torpedoes at the moment, even thought it means using the MJD a bit more. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 594	Posted - 2015.03.26 03:18:18 - [37] - Quote Iain Cariaba wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: With an extra low you could run a signal amplifier, nanofiber, power diagnostic or even an armor tank. I'm kinda curious how you imagine you could build an effective armor tank out of that without further reducing the DPS that you're already whining about. Last I checked, two modules, allowing that the 5% reduction in DPS by dropping one BCU is acceptable, did not make an effective armor tank. Also needs to consider some other things... For scorps you get armour mod stack penalty if you boost the armour aspect. Assume vanilla tank setup of 2 X 1600, EANM II and DCU....a type specific will not be so great with stack penalty. Stack penalty gets real fun if armour rigs on boat as well. had one like this as one home snuck an armour rig on the fleet spec. Did not feel any "safer" in it tbh. jam mods will stack penalty with jam rigs (usually ran with them). that and I was mentored under more rigid mindsets...either tank by jam mods or tank by armour (rig only jam boosting). Mix the 2, you get a mix that tends to lack all around. Go 1 strict setup...you at least do 1 thing passably. But that's me again being not liking stacking penalty mindset and looking for better all around options. Case of his golem idea....I see too much good going on with an extra mid really to not warrant the shift to low. Golem not needing TP would scream passive resist amp heavy fit to me really. Bit of a stacking penalty but if DC hits they won't shut off if you can't login before bastion cycle runs out. In this case I will risk being a hypocrite and say stacking penalty is okay here. But for a good technical reason. Had a recent bout with CCP's mac os client being rather unreliable past few patches back. I got the mysterious crashes of doom many had. CCP fixed them it seems (yay for you CCP, good job btw)...but what about the next patch or mac's next OS revision says the paranoia I have from many years as an IT professional lol. I fear the DC active hardener shutoff of doom more than stacking penalty in this exception. I'd give him his TP bonus change tbh...but slots stay the same my caveat here the take away.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 492	Posted - 2015.03.26 04:06:07 - [38] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Catherine Laartii wrote: You should go for a signal amp instead of that 4th bcu (assuming it would get a 5th low in this instance). I run this setup for my raven and along with two sebos it shoots and targets out past 200km. Possibly. I really abhor cruise missiles at this point in time. It's a combination of the slow rate of fire and long lead time to impact. I'm enjoying torpedoes at the moment, even thought it means using the MJD a bit more. I tend to enjoy them immensely. I negate the issue with timing by remembering how many volleys it takes to kill specific rats, and move on to a new target after that number. It takes less time, actually, and the range means that I barely ever get hit. I can solo lvl 5s in a cheap fit this way reliably.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 889	Posted - 2015.03.26 06:30:56 - [39] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Double post. You lost all your free credibility in my eyes when you complained that you have to micro manage target painters. It's pretty clear you're a lazy mode player that wants easy mode farming. Please stop trying to take a dump on a wonderful ship.
Adriana Nolen Sama Guild 69	Posted - 2015.03.26 07:54:59 - [40] - Quote This thread brings up the point that we need a sentry drone marauder.
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15526	Posted - 2015.03.26 08:31:01 - [41] - Quote Golem is more than fine as is Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 237	Posted - 2015.03.26 08:54:38 - [42] - Quote It would be easier if we could stack TP. F1 for attack and 2 or 3 painter every target is kinda clickfest. "...genre is a definition, the definition in itself must have boundaries, the boundaries act as barriers, and the barriers are like walls, like the walls of a prisonn++..." The Good, The Bad and The Bantam
stoicfaux 5541	Posted - 2015.03.26 12:57:56 - [43] - Quote -1 I fly a Golem with 4 TPs. I would lose a tremendous amount of applied DPS if the TP bonus was swapped for a straight explosion radius bonus. With 4 PWNAGE TPs, I can multiply a target's sig by 3.56 times, thus allowing a Golem with Fury cruise missiles to one-shot non-elite NPC cruisers. (I dislike ammo switching.) Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 205	Posted - 2015.03.26 13:46:38 - [44] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Donnachadh wrote: You list the bonus as 25% for explosion radius and that would be horrible, smaller is always better so if you want to push your idea better change that to a -25% bonus. I thought it was a given that the 25% explosion radius bonus was a negative value... You might think that is the case but CCP does not agree with you. Whenever a module or rig has a negative affect on a ship CCP always lists it with the "-" preceding the percentage value. An example is the reinforced bulkhead tech 2 gives "-11%" to cargo capacity for fitting it. After all the arguments you have made to support your failed idea, in the end it is still a failed idea that would not in any way improve the Golem or it's usefulness.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 439	Posted - 2015.03.26 15:18:23 - [45] - Quote To be fairly honest, you'd be better off suggesting they double the Golem's projection bonus and flip it into a torpedo-only bonus to help incentivize people to use torpedoes more than cruise missiles on ship that use to back in the day be what you would want if you wanted Torpedoes and left the CNR for Cruises. Traits Caldari Battleship bonuses (per skill level): 20% bonus to Torpedo max velocity (was 10% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo max velocity) 5% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity Marauders bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness 7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount Role bonus: 100% bonus to Tractor Beam range and velocity 70% reduction in Micro Jump Drive reactivation delay Can fit Bastion modules 100% bonus to Heavy Missile, Cruise Missile and Torpedo damage Point is, leave the TP bonus alone. I'll admit it's a bit of an odd-ball bonus, but it has a solid purpose on that ship. Also, and I don't mean to judge, but "armor tank on a Golem"? Really, dude?
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4219	Posted - 2015.03.26 15:37:14 - [46] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: You might think that is the case but CCP does not agree with you. Whenever a module or rig has a negative affect on a ship CCP always lists it with the "-" preceding the percentage value. An example is the reinforced bulkhead tech 2 gives "-11%" to cargo capacity for fitting it. I listed it the same way as the bonus for the Raven Navy Issue is listed. stoicfaux wrote: I fly a Golem with 4 TPs. I would lose a tremendous amount of applied DPS if the TP bonus was swapped for a straight explosion radius bonus. With 4 PWNAGE TPs, I can multiply a target's sig by 3.56 times, thus allowing a Golem with Fury cruise missiles to one-shot non-elite NPC cruisers. (I dislike ammo switching.) Looks like you would need a 33% "rigor" bonus to match the existing TP bonus. I think we all dislike swapping ammunition. While the 25% explosion radius bonus doesn't match the existing TP bonus, it's a passive bonus that applies over all ranges. So you would lose 8% up to the optimal range of your target painter, probably break even around 60-70km and be well ahead over 100km. Not too mention the two extra mid slots you'd free up. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
stoicfaux 5543	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:46:50 - [47] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I think we all dislike swapping ammunition. While the 25% explosion radius bonus doesn't match the existing TP bonus, it's a passive bonus that applies over all ranges. So you would lose 8% up to the optimal range of your target painter, probably break even around 60-70km and be well ahead over 100km. At 118km (sensor range), I have a 56% change of hitting with a TP (63% with all Vs.) The odds of hitting with 1 TP: 56% 2 TP: 81% for 1+, 31% for 2 (81% to hit with one or more TPs, 31% to hit with both) 3 TP: 91% for 1+, 59% for 2+, 18% for 3 4 TP: 96% for 1+, 77% for 2+, 41% for 3+, 10% for 4 At 100km, I have a 72% chance to hit with a TP (77% with all Vs.) With 4 TPs, I have: 99% to hit with 1+, 93% to hit with 2+, 68% to hit with 3+, 27% to hit will all 4 Between the 84km falloff (90k with all Vs) and four TPs, it's not a big deal to shoot larger targets at extreme ranges while waiting for smaller targets to arrive (in the context of PvE.) Plus, there's the MJD which means the Golem's TPs will almost always be in optimal anyway. Quote: Not too mention the two extra mid slots you'd free up. The 25% rigor bonus would be equivalent to a 33% TP, which is little better than a PWN TP. At best, you're saving 1 mid slot. So while having a guaranteed rigor bonus would be nice, a 25% explosion radius hull bonus in place of the TP bonus would be an overall nerf. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4223	Posted - 2015.03.26 18:30:05 - [48] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: So while having a guaranteed rigor bonus would be nice, a 25% explosion radius hull bonus in place of the TP bonus would be an overall nerf. Yes and no. With two Large Warhead Catalyst Rigor rigs and an explosion radius bonus, you wouldn't need the target painter bonus. So that's two extra mid slots. As with everything, depending on application YMMV. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1642	Posted - 2015.03.26 18:56:34 - [49] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: stoicfaux wrote: So while having a guaranteed rigor bonus would be nice, a 25% explosion radius hull bonus in place of the TP bonus would be an overall nerf. Yes and no. With two Large Warhead Catalyst Rigor rigs and an explosion radius bonus, you wouldn't need the target painter bonus. So that's two extra mid slots. As with everything, depending on application YMMV. What are you gonna do with those mid slots? Even more tank?
stoicfaux 5543	Posted - 2015.03.26 19:29:01 - [50] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: stoicfaux wrote: So while having a guaranteed rigor bonus would be nice, a 25% explosion radius hull bonus in place of the TP bonus would be an overall nerf. Yes and no. With two Large Warhead Catalyst Rigor rigs and an explosion radius bonus, you wouldn't need the target painter bonus. So that's two extra mid slots. As with everything, depending on application YMMV. In order to one shot all non-elite NPC cruisers, I need 4 PWNAGE TPs, 2 Rigor Is, cruise missile skill at 5/4 and relevant missile support skills at V. So, I'm still not seeing how swapping the TP bonus for a weaker 25% rigor bonus would save me a mid or two. If anything, I would have to add another TP to make up for the overall loss of applied DPS, putting me down another mid slot. As my googledocs spreadsheet shows in post #43, the 25% rigor bonus would not make up for the loss of the TP bonus. A 33% rigor bonus would provide the same benefit as the TP bonus, but even then, you still need the same amount of TPs. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 98	Posted - 2015.03.26 19:31:41 - [51] - Quote It is my opinion that TP bonus should stay on, but may including bonus to TP optimal/fallout range for cruise missile. But I have no experience with pvp, so I have no idea what impact it can occur Really, in my view, Golem was meaning to be Torp boat, such that Golem get strong TP to support torp damage application.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4226	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:18:53 - [52] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: What are you gonna do with those mid slots? Even more tank? Not entirely sure yet. I'd really prefer 2 more low slots. stoicfaux wrote: In order to one shot all non-elite NPC cruisers, I need 4 PWNAGE TPs, 2 Rigor Is, cruise missile skill at 5/4 and relevant missile support skills at V. I can usually 1-shot non-elite NPC cruisers in a single volley with a Navy Raven, using just rigors and Faction ammunition. As the Golem has a 25% explosion velocity bonus on top of that, it would put it slightly above a Navy Raven in terms of passive damage application. If you're using Fury ammunition that could be part of the problem and why you need target painters to effectively apply damage against anything smaller than a battleship. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 493	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:28:57 - [53] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: I think we all dislike swapping ammunition. While the 25% explosion radius bonus doesn't match the existing TP bonus, it's a passive bonus that applies over all ranges. So you would lose 8% up to the optimal range of your target painter, probably break even around 60-70km and be well ahead over 100km. At 118km (sensor range), I have a 56% change of hitting with a TP (63% with all Vs.) The odds of hitting with 1 TP: 56% 2 TP: 81% for 1+, 31% for 2 (81% to hit with one or more TPs, 31% to hit with both) 3 TP: 91% for 1+, 59% for 2+, 18% for 3 4 TP: 96% for 1+, 77% for 2+, 41% for 3+, 10% for 4 At 100km, I have a 72% chance to hit with a TP (77% with all Vs.) With 4 TPs, I have: 99% to hit with 1+, 93% to hit with 2+, 68% to hit with 3+, 27% to hit will all 4 Between the 84km falloff (90k with all Vs) and four TPs, it's not a big deal to shoot larger targets at extreme ranges while waiting for smaller targets to arrive (in the context of PvE.) Plus, there's the MJD which means the Golem's TPs will almost always be in optimal anyway. Quote: Not too mention the two extra mid slots you'd free up. The 25% rigor bonus would be equivalent to a 33% TP, which is little better than a PWN TP. At best, you're saving 1 mid slot. So while having a guaranteed rigor bonus would be nice, a 25% explosion radius hull bonus in place of the TP bonus would be an overall nerf. You're also assuming people fight at or under 100km ranges. I use the mjd pretty heavily and fight out past 200km with cruise exclusively so I don't get hit at all. Cruise missiles are great for this, and having a hull sig radius bonus is preferable in this situation since it, as has been said, applies at ALL ranges. Now, I can attest to the viability of having multiple TPs work for a torp boat. That makes a good degree of sense at closer ranges since you want all that dps from torps to apply well. But having a straight hull bonus applies to all play styles, not just close-range torpedoes, and you can still fit TPs, even if they're unbonused in this situation.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4226	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:43:55 - [54] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: But having a straight hull bonus applies to all play styles, not just close-range torpedoes, and you can still fit TPs, even if they're unbonused in this situation. The explosion radius bonus could always be bumped up to 7.5% per level, for a total of 37.5%. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1312	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:55:24 - [55] - Quote All this talk of how it should be buffed, without stopping to think if it should be buffed. Sheesh.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 494	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:16:27 - [56] - Quote Anhenka wrote: All this talk of how it should be buffed, without stopping to think if it should be buffed. Sheesh. well to be fair, TP bonus is a really weird one for a caldari ship. The line bonuses for application on them tend to be centered around ship hull bonuses anyway, so it DOES make a certain degree of sense for this topic to be addressing that.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1312	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:20:06 - [57] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Anhenka wrote: All this talk of how it should be buffed, without stopping to think if it should be buffed. Sheesh. well to be fair, TP bonus is a really weird one for a caldari ship. The line bonuses for application on them tend to be centered around ship hull bonuses anyway, so it DOES make a certain degree of sense for this topic to be addressing that. Shuffling bonuses around maybe. Requesting that a bonus be baked directly into a hull so you no longer need to use a slot of gain the effect, and then requesting that the now magically opened slot be moved to a place you would rather it be? That's a flat out buff. And a very significant one at that. To a ship which is already excellent.
stoicfaux 5543	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:22:55 - [58] - Quote Meh. If you want to snipe at 200+km then use a gunboat with T2 long range ammo. There's no reason to nerf the Golem just to support a 200+km edge case. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 439	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:23:43 - [59] - Quote unidenify wrote: It is my opinion that TP bonus should stay on, but may including bonus to TP optimal/fallout range for cruise missile. But I have no experience with pvp, so I have no idea what impact it can occur Really, in my view, Golem was meaning to be Torp boat, such that Golem get strong TP to support torp damage application. My thoughts exactly. The old Golems use to be torp boats, and to some extent they still are. I'd be using torps right now, but they are far too ** poor in performance compared to cruises. I just wish people would stop using Javelins to argue range so damn much, like that's a missile I should be happy with having to use. Yes, the range looks good (well, better than rage and faction torps), but not only is the application worse that cruise rage, you do less damage. Talk about torpedo rage and the damage goes up ~250 dps, but the application *** even more and you can't even push 40km bastion off or 50km bastion on even with 6% imps and range rigs. Faction torps can give you another ten klicks, with better application, but it'll cost much more to use that t2 ammo. The fact that cruises can already one to two-shot pretty much anything besides battleships WITHOUT range even being a factor at all and with one to two less target painters kindo of kills it for me on torpedoes. Plus, CCP took away the big ass shock wave effects long ago. No, they didn't behave like they should in real space, but they looked sexier than sin and to hell with real physics in Eve anyways. Sorry, rant over.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 595	Posted - 2015.03.26 23:02:15 - [60] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Anhenka wrote: All this talk of how it should be buffed, without stopping to think if it should be buffed. Sheesh. well to be fair, TP bonus is a really weird one for a caldari ship. The line bonuses for application on them tend to be centered around ship hull bonuses anyway, so it DOES make a certain degree of sense for this topic to be addressing that. this a fair stance to come from. TP is minmatar thing if we want to get all lore/fluff picky. And to bring one aspect of the ole guns versus missile rants of old....a kronos' bonus tracking bonus applies across all ranges 100% of the time. Golems tp bonus applies full time only at optimal or under. I have done rail kronos (heresy to some I know lol). It can fire out far away with this tracking bonus. Golem all skills 5 is 45km opt witrh RF TP. Its not even pity the 100km snipe marauders imo here. Golem loses its bonus' edge at 45km's. Modest fit on kronos with CNAM, 1 TC (range) + 1 TE is 54+79. I get tracking bonused across the entire spectrum. Throw in CN Plutonium or Uranium if bored and you get even better ranges that keep some damage numbers still. I am admittedly avoiding dps drop of spike here. In the off chance of pvp use...I won't be putting a kronos (or golem) at on grid warp range is why. And for pvp CN ammo is usually SOP generic use. IN the case of PVE...we can also argue its not as cost prohibitive to run it on 4 guns. Golem is same here....its been okay to run CN missiles here as well for many in the past for PVE.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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