EVE Search - Is power creep really a bad thing?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Is power creep really a bad thing?

» 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)
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3825	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:33:13 - [1] - Quote The ship meta needs to be fixed and in order to fix it, power creep is a necessary evil. BCs are in a bad place, BSes are in a place where BCs should be. CCP and the playerbase are so strongly against the idea of allowing power to flow as it should. I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep. Oh god.
Globby Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE. 95	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:34:23 - [2] - Quote nah
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1043	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:39:33 - [3] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: The ship meta needs to be fixed and in order to fix it, power creep is a necessary evil. BCs are in a bad place, BSes are in a place where BCs should be. CCP and the playerbase are so strongly against the idea of allowing power to flow as it should. I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep. I really like your picture! I don't know enough about this to form an opinion, but at least I admit it and don't ignore it, like most posters below! "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 492	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:39:42 - [4] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: BCs are in a bad place Nobody wins a fight with a BC that is just craziness! Talos DPS needs a buff. Myrms needs more tank so it can bait better. Nado needs more alpha. Ferox fleets are just silliness. I am sure we can come up with many more examples of how these ships suck! But I still want to bring my drake. I like drakes.
Yarda Black Militaris Industries Northern Coalition. 773	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:41:41 - [5] - Quote Angelica Dreamstar wrote: I really like your picture! I don't know enough about this to form an opinion, but at least I admit it and don't ignore it, like most posters below! I made three attempts at a reply out of courtesy to the OP. But all three times I had to admit that I dont understand the post well enough to add anything usefull. Until now! Yay! I posted! Below you tho.... :(
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3829	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:41:44 - [6] - Quote Renegade Heart wrote: Talos DPS needs a buff. Talos is the only ABC that gets a flight of small drones. Oh god.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3829	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:43:26 - [7] - Quote Yarda Black wrote: Angelica Dreamstar wrote: I really like your picture! I don't know enough about this to form an opinion, but at least I admit it and don't ignore it, like most posters below! I made three attempts at a reply out of courtesy to the OP. But all three times I had to admit that I dont understand the post well enough to add anything usefull. Until now! Yay! I posted! Below you tho.... :( dw yarda, i acknowledge your posts :3 Oh god.
Avaelica Kuershin Paper Cats 201	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:53:30 - [8] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: The ship meta needs to be fixed and in order to fix it, power creep is a necessary evil. BCs are in a bad place, BSes are in a place where BCs should be. CCP and the playerbase are so strongly against the idea of allowing power to flow as it should. I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep. In a bad place compared with T1 smaller ships, or with regard the T2 and T3 smaller ships? I had though that GÇÿpower creepGÇÖ in EVE related to the relative power of T2 (or T3) compared to the T1 hulls. Once you have T2 cruisers, is there any point in BCs?
Do Little Red Frog Freight Red-Frog 51	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:53:59 - [9] - Quote Power creep is inevitable - using nerfs to restore balance isn't popular even if it is obviously the right choice. The problem with power creep is that you don't restore balance - you just move the problem somewhere else. If the Talos gets more DPS, should freighters get more EHP? How about the gate guns - should they be buffed to restore their original capability? When you toss a rock in the pond, it isn't just about the splash - you need to chase the ripples.
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 493	Posted - 2015.07.18 09:59:56 - [10] - Quote Avaelica Kuershin wrote: Once you have T2 cruisers, is there any point in BCs? One time I blapped a cocky deimos pilot in my cane (after the cane got nerfed). I could fly all the T2 cruisers but he might have feared those if I undocked in one. He certainly thought he could take my cane out, starting his attack the instant i undocked. Now for others, this might mean nothing, since they might not do things like I do, but I am happy my cane won! I might add I've seen someone baiting in a Talos take out a Vindi too. Sure he had logi and bumpers helping him, but it was still quite awesome.
Barrogh Habalu Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 933	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:00:59 - [11] - Quote Not always, but depends on where you start and what you are doing. If power creep is caused by certain character / tool / archetype / strategy ("toolset") stands out because it allows player to adapt and setup variety of options with some foresight and skill to get upper hand against other bland and boring toolsets, then maaaybe it's where others should be instead of OP one being out of place. If something becomes strong because it has one oppressive gameplan that couldn't care less about whatever opponent is trying to do, then it's probably not correct direction to go. Just keep in mind that if every toolset allows a ton of options and styles, then they probably will start overlapping, causing lose of diversity, which is often the goal behind asymmetrical balance in the first place.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Lethal Intent. 4448	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:05:43 - [12] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep. you're asking people to argue against your position but you haven't actually talked about it it's an unfair expectation
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 494	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:09:42 - [13] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Riot Girl wrote: I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep. you're asking people to argue against your position but you haven't actually talked about it it's an unfair expectation You must have missed the bit where it was stated that "BCs are in a bad place". If you can't argue against this, then I take it you agree with it? In that case, I hope you don't lose something you treasure to a BC you've underestimated
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3831	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:10:34 - [14] - Quote That's because my position is very unorthodox and as soon as I mention it, people are gonna jump down my throat and bust my guts out. Oh god.
Webvan All Kill No Skill 11191	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:17:26 - [15] - Quote I don't think power creep is the same as balance though. So in that, no. Doesn't mean some ships can't be a little stronger in ways, pref different ways, but that it balances out with other ships as they should as well as with the environment, their true intention. Power creep in games I've seen means a select class, gear or whatnot is bumped up in advantage over others, or all bumped up against the environment were say here rats seem much weaker. Power creep, gear progression, or... er like special classes designed to be overpowered the word escapes me. Like privileged classes. Example would be like Jedi in SWG, but their compensation for being OP was perma-death which bounty hunters were given full opportunity to enforce hehe. Oh prestige class, yep. I favor balance. That is a challenge though in a pvp/pve environment, if taken seriously. In some cases, new things dropped into a game can be OP and not fit, for one reason or another but sometimes that reason is "hey look at we just made, isn't it glorious?". More of a PR thing I think, and when it wears down it gets nerfed. That stuff may get a pass in a level progression themepark, but imo not so welcome in a openworld sandbox simulator. Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3831	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:28:00 - [16] - Quote Ship balance is impeded by the PvE meta. Webvan I usually appreciate your posts but today, you have been drinking. Oh god.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Lethal Intent. 4448	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:29:09 - [17] - Quote Renegade Heart wrote: You must have missed the bit where it was stated that "BCs are in a bad place". If you can't argue against this, then I take it you agree with it? that's not an argument Quote: That's because my position is very unorthodox and as soon as I mention it, people are gonna jump down my throat and bust my guts out. but you asked people to argue against it. how can anyone look at your idea if it's not presented if it can't stand to scrutiny it's not even worth pretending the idea is solid
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 494	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:31:27 - [18] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Renegade Heart wrote: You must have missed the bit where it was stated that "BCs are in a bad place". If you can't argue against this, then I take it you agree with it? that's not an argument Indeed. However, it is a position, which you can argue against being correct, if you could be bothered.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 3831	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:34:45 - [19] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: you asked people to argue against it. how can anyone look at your idea if it's not presented if it can't stand to scrutiny it's not even worth pretending the idea is solid Thanks for making my point. I made this thread to scrutinise the philosophy behind anti-power creep mentality. This is the existing idea I'm challenging. You're telling me to challenge my own idea before it exists rather than challenging the existing mentality. Oh god.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Lethal Intent. 4448	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:35:00 - [20] - Quote Renegade Heart wrote: Indeed. However, it is a position, which you can argue against being correct, if you could be bothered. the thread's about 'convince me this idea is better than this idea'. it can't be done without detailing the advantages of the second idea the op says 'power creep is necessary' twice and asks to be convinced otherwise. it's not fair to expect someone to argue like that when they don't know what the other idea is
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 494	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:37:08 - [21] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Renegade Heart wrote: Indeed. However, it is a position, which you can argue against being correct, if you could be bothered. the thread's about 'convince me this idea is better than this idea'. it can't be done without detailing the advantages of the second idea the op says 'power creep is necessary' twice and asks to be convinced otherwise. it's not fair to expect someone to argue like that when they don't know what the other idea is I think it is fair. I've enjoyed the opportunity presented by OP for me to chime in with some rambling nonsense here too. Do you have anything constructive to say though? [edit] In case I've completely missed the point of the thread, I just want to say that I like drakes that much, I had to chime in because of the idea of someone thinking "BCs are in a bad place". Drakes are really cool.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Lethal Intent. 4448	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:49:29 - [22] - Quote Renegade Heart wrote: Do you have anything constructive to say though? i have been sincere and polite in expressing concern to the op your posts are hostile
Webvan All Kill No Skill 11192	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:52:15 - [23] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: Ship balance is impeded by the PvE meta. Webvan I usually appreciate your posts but today, you have been drinking. They have tooled with it some, such as giving rats better AI and EWAR usage etc. Like I said, difficulty is balancing in an environment with pve/pvp, having both that is. It's more of an AI issue as far as pve, though still could never get close to human ability which is what usually brings me or us to games with or about pvp. That's also a design issue, to what CCP is more compelled to lean towards when they start dropping weight onto the balances; more onto pve or onto pvp, yes it doesn't always translate to equal balance... though it could. Never seen it though, not optimal and a never ending maze. But as was said in an earlier post I agree with, power creep only pushes the problem forward etc. Personally I don't think people have problems with nerfs if it's obvious something needs a nerf. The rest thrive for getting into the most OP ship as it happens and then get all upset when it finally gets balanced or nerfed as it should. Wat? I drink every night Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 494	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:54:23 - [24] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Renegade Heart wrote: Do you have anything constructive to say though? i have been sincere and polite in expressing concern to the op your posts are hostile In other words, you don't like where I pointed out where you might have been wrong. I think I was sincere and polite enough to you, but if you feel this way, it's better I don't waste my time with this anymore. Enjoy the thread dude.
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Lethal Intent. 4449	Posted - 2015.07.18 10:58:55 - [25] - Quote Renegade Heart wrote: In other words, you don't like where I pointed out where you might have been wrong. no, that's not what i said
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1047	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:02:06 - [26] - Quote Stop it, you children. Make your own thread, if you want to argue. Now go clean up your rooms! "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Renegade Heart Carebear Miners R Us 495	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:02:57 - [27] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Renegade Heart wrote: In other words, you don't like where I pointed out where you might have been wrong. no, that's not what i said Ok sorry. Ignore me. It's cool. I have nothing further to add! Apart from that drakes are the best. Everyone should learn to love the awesome ship that is the drake.
Kestral Anneto The Founding Four Fidelas Constans 92	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:17:19 - [28] - Quote There has been to much power creep as it is, the entire thing needs reoworked if you ask me. A frig should get owned by a destroyer, a destroyer should get owned by a cruiser, a cruiser should get owned by a battlecruiser and a battlecruiser should get owned by a Battleship. (capitals are somethign else entirely.) the only time this should not happen is when the smaller hulls have numbers on there side. T2 ships should be more specialised, so they are not the "I win" that they are now. Because of CCP and their infinite wisdom, we now have a situation where cruisers are the go to hull class for fleets, big or small. This should not happen, Battleships should be the backbone of any fleet, with a mixture of other hull classes being mixed in to make a decent fleet comp, not "max tengu's" or "max cerbs". There is no point even talking about this, however, as we all know that CCP will not move away from their crusade to dumb down EvE and keep it Cruisers Online. Sure, they may say that they are going to do X, Y or Z, but they wont do what is needed. This picture is getting spread until Fozzie come down and rolls back the FozzieSov http://puu.sh/j0jX9/92e94d8a2d.jpg
Commander Spurty Dimension Door We need wards. 1518	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:30:41 - [29] - Quote Blobs take all your logic and poo all over it. You name the hull, I'll name the blob that will counter it. I'd also leave 'ISK EFFICIENCY' off the table. Blobs are immune to that sort of thinking. There are good ships And wood ships And ships that sail the sea But the best ships are Spaceships Built by CCP
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1048	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:33:10 - [30] - Quote Kestral Anneto wrote: There has been to much power creep as it is, the entire thing needs reoworked if you ask me. A frig should get owned by a destroyer, a destroyer should get owned by a cruiser, a cruiser should get owned by a battlecruiser and a battlecruiser should get owned by a Battleship. Yeah, clearly you know all about balance! Did you EVER actually shoot anyone? "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2966	Posted - 2015.07.18 11:42:31 - [31] - Quote Power creep in the most basic of styles where everything just gets stronger to keep up with the strongest or any new content is always better than current, that is bad. Simply buffing a ship because it is outclassed from things it is supposed to outclass I would not define as power creep, rather as just balance. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Jeanne Tivianne 73	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:14:07 - [32] - Quote This thread is too smart for me, I don't know jack about balance or power creep. I cloak and sometimes I uncloak to shoot things. Anyway, just posting to say it's been a good read so far, even if I don't really understand the way the words are arranged or the point they are supposed to make.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1671	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:22:35 - [33] - Quote The answer is, it depends. If the current high powered T3D & cruiser sized hulls is viewed as intended/desirable then a certain amount of creep MUST occur, else the "desired" meta of smaller hulls has to be nerfed which by definition would be undesirable. If the current crusier sized and under ship power levels are not intended/desired then....no creep is needed and a nerf is required. Either way, it all pivots around the small ship meta and their relative power next to intentions.
Seven Koskanaiken FinFleet Northern Coalition. 1579	Posted - 2015.07.18 12:49:39 - [34] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: The ship meta needs to be fixed and in order to fix it, power creep is a necessary evil. BCs are in a bad place, BSes are in a place where BCs should be. CCP and the playerbase are so strongly against the idea of allowing power to flow as it should. I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep. BC have no role. There used to be a thing called anti-support and anti-anti-support which BC hulls were good for. Then every doctrine became cruisers zooming around at 1000 m/s which obviously BC have no use in. Maybe if this meta was fixed it would then bring back BC, rather than just buffing every hull to OP levels one after another all the time.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1991	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:16:48 - [35] - Quote Riot Girl wrote: ... Is power creep really a bad thing? ... Yes. In your original post you are not talking about power creep. The general design where battleship beat battle cruiser which beat cruiser et cetera and then multiple frigates could beat battleships, meaning they should fly with support, was sound. Generally, battlecruisers are not too bad, the boost to warp speed seems to have slipped by unnoticed. Command ships are a very long training time now. There are no real T2 battlecruisers and battleships in the same way as cruisers (which would have been a better idea than T3 destroyers), so remember you are comparing T1 ships to T2 and T3. That a T3 cruiser can be more powerful than a battleship, which is two classes above it or where T3Ds are only really countered by other T3Ds; THAT is power creep and that is broken. (... for those who haven't seen it else where and will ask "but what do you expect of T3s? The answer is that they should be about utility rather than power). CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
Omega Capsuleer Order of Cut-Throats 0	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:31:22 - [36] - Quote Low end power creep is not bad. High end power creep is. Just my opinion.
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1050	Posted - 2015.07.18 13:42:53 - [37] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Riot Girl wrote: ... Is power creep really a bad thing? ... Yes. In your original post you are not talking about power creep. The general design where battleship beat battle cruiser which beat cruiser et cetera and then multiple frigates could beat battleships, meaning they should fly with support, was sound. Generally, battlecruisers are not too bad, the boost to warp speed seems to have slipped by unnoticed. Command ships are a very long training time now. There are no real T2 battlecruisers and battleships in the same way as cruisers (which would have been a better idea than T3 destroyers), so remember you are comparing T1 ships to T2 and T3. That a T3 cruiser can be more powerful than a battleship, which is two classes above it or where T3Ds are only really countered by other T3Ds; THAT is power creep and that is broken. (... for those who haven't seen it else where and will ask "but what do you expect of T3s?" The answer is that they should be about utility rather than power). This reminds me of that pancake ship, I forgot the name. There was a frigate, I think a cruiser and a battleship. It feels like CCP is baiting ~~idiots~~ cash-cows with feelings of power and superiority. "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1992	Posted - 2015.07.18 14:11:41 - [38] - Quote Angelica Dreamstar wrote: ... This reminds me of that pancake ship, I forgot the name. There was a frigate, I think a cruiser and a battleship. It feels like CCP is baiting ~~idiots~~ cash-cows with feelings of power and superiority. Armour Barghest fit to long range tackle is rather insane. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other spaces, where they can grow Fozzie SOV is treating a symptom.
Angelica Dreamstar Miner's House of ill repute 1055	Posted - 2015.07.18 16:19:56 - [39] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Angelica Dreamstar wrote: ... This reminds me of that pancake ship, I forgot the name. There was a frigate, I think a cruiser and a battleship. It feels like CCP is baiting ~~idiots~~ cash-cows with feelings of power and superiority. Armour Barghest fit to long range tackle is rather insane. Yeah that one and the other tofu. "People need to realise that saying "someone else will do it" also mean that other someone else might be thinking the exact same thing..." -- Frostys Virpio, very attentive person, thoughtful, smart responses. Understands self responsibility.
Minister of Death Ministry of War Amarr Empire 76	Posted - 2015.07.18 21:02:17 - [40] - Quote T3BS!!! T3DS is so damn fun, it makes sense that T3BS would be "funner" yet.
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 284	Posted - 2015.07.19 03:25:52 - [41] - Quote WOW, uses power creep as a game feature and numbers got so out of hand the had to backaway from the idea (well as much as they could in a game mechanic so core to the game). As, you probably know WOW is two years younger than EVE and they hit this problem already, if EVE had done the same we would be doing 150,000 dps in reapers and all you get is the need for more computational power and numbers so large they just become stupid. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2279	Posted - 2015.07.19 04:32:26 - [42] - Quote Power creep is always bad. By definition. Since Power creep is the constant unpwards spiral of power that occurs if you only buff to fix balance, then have to buff again to fix the previous buff. Buffing an under-performing hull is not power creep. It's just a part of balancing. It only becomes power creep if they buff it too far, then buff everything else to catch up and something else goes too far and it enters the endless buff cycle. Basically, learn what words mean.
Valkin Mordirc 1258	Posted - 2015.07.19 04:55:57 - [43] - Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw `#DeleteTheWeak`
Webvan All Kill No Skill 11254	Posted - 2015.07.19 05:48:09 - [44] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: WOW, uses power creep as a game feature and numbers got so out of hand the had to backaway from the idea (well as much as they could in a game mechanic so core to the game). As, you probably know WOW is two years younger than EVE and they hit this problem already, if EVE had done the same we would be doing 150,000 dps in reapers and all you get is the need for more computational power and numbers so large they just become stupid. I don't know about WoW, but GW2 did the same thing. You can pretty much kill a world boss/dragon with a box of rusty butter knives. I think they did that to attract WoW players so to gamble big monies in their item shop. Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12
Infinity Ziona Cloakers 2322	Posted - 2015.07.19 08:48:27 - [45] - Quote Angelica Dreamstar wrote: Kestral Anneto wrote: There has been to much power creep as it is, the entire thing needs reoworked if you ask me. A frig should get owned by a destroyer, a destroyer should get owned by a cruiser, a cruiser should get owned by a battlecruiser and a battlecruiser should get owned by a Battleship. Yeah, clearly you know all about balance! Did you EVER actually shoot anyone? Actually the poster is correct. This is how the original game was designed and intended to be played. Unintended design flaws cause the devs to make changes that resulted in further Unintended flaws. A viscous cycle of change new flaw ensued which resulted in the devs losing a grip on the original game design and rather than developer driven design it became more like flaw / fix driven design. A few of the design changes were also driven by unidentified opportunity (alliances / sov) but the reality is the game was originally planned along the eve hulls size and power matching historical Terran naval units size and power. CCP Fozzie GÇ£We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGÇª in null sec anomalies. GÇ£* Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1208	Posted - 2015.07.19 12:01:46 - [46] - Quote Kestral Anneto wrote: There has been to much power creep as it is, the entire thing needs reoworked if you ask me. A frig should get owned by a destroyer, a destroyer should get owned by a cruiser, a cruiser should get owned by a battlecruiser and a battlecruiser should get owned by a Battleship. Check on A Check on B Check on C Check on D Hey, true in all cases already :D Svipul beats wolf, rupture kills svipul, hurricanes kills rupture, tempest kills cane. Easy. I better ignore Guristas and Mordus ships, though.

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.