| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
218
   |
Posted - 2015.11.18 15:48:23 -
[361] - Quote
wow... when can we expect these ships?
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
Ylein Kashuken
SQUIDS.
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 15:48:28 -
[362] - Quote
Can we activate this jump field directly at stations?
This might be nightmare for JF and station links :D |
Alexis Nightwish
351
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 15:48:33 -
[363] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:Can we please type out the stats here on the forums. Not all us have access to Google docs, youtube, etc. because we happen to have moved to a country that blocks this stuff. Thanks  Not very pretty but here you go.
Name Pontifex Stork Magus Bifrost
Power Grid 55 63 59 58
CPU 220 280 210 250
High Slots 5 6 5 6
Mid Slots 3 6 4 5
Low Slots 5 2 4 3
Total Slots 13 14 13 14
Rig Slots 2 2 2 2
Calibration 400 400 400 400
Turret Hardpoints 3 0 3 0
Launcher Hardpoints 3 5 1 5
Shield HP 625 950 650 830
Armor HP 850 625 800 680
Hull HP 780 680 830 655
total hp 2255 2255 2280 2165
Capacitor 750 650 700 600
Cap Recharge 375000 325000 350000 300000
cap/s 2 2 2 2
Max Velocity 330 335 325 345
Agility 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.3
Base Mass 1250000 1300000 1150000 1235000
align time 5.89 6.49 5.1 5.65
MWD Speed 1744 1730 1802 1836
Warp Speed 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
Drone Bandwidth 25 0 35 0
Drone Bay 75 0 60 0
Target Range 50000 60000 55000 45000
Scan Resolution 525 475 500 550
Max Targets 7 7 7 7
Radar Strength 12 0 0 0
Ladar Strength 0 0 0 11
Magnetometric Strength 0 0 13 0
Gravimetric Strength 0 14 0 0
Signature Radius 64 69 67 60
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
637
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 15:52:57 -
[364] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Just a suggestion here, but perhaps prevent use of these if they are within a certain range of a Stargate or a Station. The reason being that this could potentially kill a lot of PvP.
I think there should be no restriction. The main reason is i want to see cowardly link alts who hug stations/gates to get killed as frequently as possible by MJDing them away from their 99% safe area and get wrecked.
Cant wait for links to be changed, lowsec is pure cancer right now because of this. To the point we have linked breachers and comets flying around. Ill happily take negative sec status and welp a few CD to kill these cowards hiding behind links.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 15:58:38 -
[365] - Quote
afkalt wrote:gascanu wrote:afkalt wrote:
words.. words ...words... something something highsec
.
really guys, what part of the big restrictions you need to know are that you cannot use this module in high sec you guys don't understand? this mod is banned from high sec, can you get the over it and move on? And some of us are challenging the reasons for that ban and suggesting it should be allowed. These are both features & ideas as well as feedback thus are entirely appropriate. Very much like how people campaigned to remove MJDs from the ABCs which had it in the initial iteration. You are, of course, at liberty to ignore the posts talking about them as you see fit.
Here are a few of the current issues I see allowing the module (as is) in HighSec:
1. In many situations you can't scram a fleet mate since you would get CONCORD response.
2. You can not preemptively attack or scram the CD since it is HighSec and you would get a CONCORD response.
3. It would force solo ships into games of keep away, trying to avoid CDs that are closing in on them. Otherwise that ship has to stop focusing on whatever it was doing and constantly watch for the MJF animation. A CD could cozy up to you for minutes waiting for you to let your guard down then activate their module.
What about the idea of adding a criminal or suspect flag?
1. MJF should not cause a flag for activating the module, since you would put yourself at risk using it on friendlies.
2. If it caused a flag upon jumping a neutral ship it would be too late for many victims.
3. Would require ship fits or fleet comps to change to counter this new module, and this would be a pretty broad and disruptive change just to use 1 new module in highsec.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1621
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 16:08:21 -
[366] - Quote
Ylein Kashuken wrote:Can we activate this jump field directly at stations?
This might be nightmare for JF and station links :D
Doesn't work on invulnerable ships. The undock timer and 'just jumped in' timer will give the JF plenty of time to jump or dock if the pilot's not an idiot. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
288
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 16:46:06 -
[367] - Quote
afkalt wrote:gascanu wrote:afkalt wrote:
words.. words ...words... something something highsec
.
really guys, what part of the big restrictions you need to know are that you cannot use this module in high sec you guys don't understand? this mod is banned from high sec, can you get the over it and move on? And some of us are challenging the reasons for that ban and suggesting it should be allowed. These are both features & ideas as well as feedback thus are entirely appropriate. Very much like how people campaigned to remove MJDs from the ABCs which had it in the initial iteration. You are, of course, at liberty to ignore the posts talking about them as you see fit.
and some of us see that allowing them in high sec will destroy the game:
i get it you have a problem with incursion fleets, but those are just a very very small part of high sec: mission running, hauling, mining, all of it will be affected by this new mod;
you are always missing the part that this is not a single player game, and that we will always have the n+1 game;
let me ask you something: how many scrams can you fit on your ship? ... do you get the idea?
it's not that your fleet cannot defend against one single destroyer, it's the fact that ppl will bring how many of these they need to do whatever they need to do; and, except for everyone scramming everyone in a fleet, there is no way to defend against this |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
2439
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 16:49:01 -
[368] - Quote
I'm tired of arguing with people who think that "I can't do anything".
I-cant-be-arsed-looking-after-myself-villeGäó is over there. Oh, apparently it is high sec too  . |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 17:19:51 -
[369] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Here is a feedback thread for some awesome new ships, Command Destroyers!
Their weapon systems will be missile or drone based, like their base hulls.
Here are the bonuses:
MAGUS
Gallente Destroyer Per Level:
10% Bonus to Drone Damage
4% bonus to armor resists
PONTIFEX
Amarr Destroyer per Level:
10% Bonus to Drone Damage
4% bonus to Armor Resistances
STORK
Caldari Destroyer per Level:
10% to Rocket and Light Missile Damage
4% Bonus to Shield Resistances
BIFROST
Minmatar Destroyer per Level:
10% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile Damage
4% bonus to shield resists
Okay, Drones with no HP bonus as the primary weapon system on 2 of these bothers me. It gives good dps, but makes permanently removing that DPS fairly easy, and in the case of the MAGUS it does not even have room for 2 full sets (3 light 2 medium).
I would almost prefer unbonused or HP only bonused drones and a damage bonus to the racial turret, so small laser and hybrids respectively. At least that way when the drone are removed the ships can still have a meaningful contribution to the offense. It leaves the ship split weapon systems but strongly encourages the use of weapons in high slots over utility.
Could CCP comment on the removal of the standard HP bonus on a drone boat? |
elitatwo
Eve Minions
The-Company
909
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 17:44:34 -
[370] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Stork looks a bit overpowered. It towers over the competition with its high shield hit points and robust mid slots, a trait which is poorly balanced by its few weaknesses: it's much less agile but otherwise its attributes don't seem to line up right.
I suggest either cutting its shield hit points by 50 without giving it anything back in exchange, or reduce its max velocity a bit and cut its scan resolution further.
A way to add some racial flavor to these ships--change the damage skill bonuses slightly:
PONTIFEX
Amarr Destroyer per Level:
12.5% Bonus to Drone EM Damage and 7.5% Bonus to Drone Thermal, Kinetic, and Explosive Damage
STORK
Caldari Destroyer per Level:
12.5% Bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage and 7.5% Bonus to Missile EM, Thermal, and Explosive Damage
MAGUS
Gallente Destroyer Per Level:
12.5% Bonus to Drone Thermal Damage and 7.5% Bonus to Drone EM, Kinetic, and Explosive Damage
BIFROST
Minmatar Destroyer per Level:
12.5% Bonus to Missile Explosive Damage and 7.5% Bonus to Missile EM, Thermal, and Kinetic Damage
Reaver, as much as I admire your enthusiasm can you give me a minute to take a look at them first?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
244
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 18:28:07 -
[371] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Just a suggestion here, but perhaps prevent use of these if they are within a certain range of a Stargate or a Station. The reason being that this could potentially kill a lot of PvP. I think there should be no restriction. The main reason is i want to see cowardly link alts who hug stations/gates to get killed as frequently as possible by MJDing them away from their 99% safe area and get wrecked. Cant wait for links to be changed, lowsec is pure cancer right now because of this. To the point we have linked breachers and comets flying around. Ill happily take negative sec status and welp a few CD to kill these cowards hiding behind links.
till you realize that these can fit 2-3 links and give the same bonuses as t3's thus its may be cheaper to have links in space. |
Mixu Paatelainen
Semicompetence Online
222
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 18:54:15 -
[372] - Quote
Late to this thread but just thought it was important I contributed:
asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf so excite |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
637
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 19:07:45 -
[373] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Just a suggestion here, but perhaps prevent use of these if they are within a certain range of a Stargate or a Station. The reason being that this could potentially kill a lot of PvP. I think there should be no restriction. The main reason is i want to see cowardly link alts who hug stations/gates to get killed as frequently as possible by MJDing them away from their 99% safe area and get wrecked. Cant wait for links to be changed, lowsec is pure cancer right now because of this. To the point we have linked breachers and comets flying around. Ill happily take negative sec status and welp a few CD to kill these cowards hiding behind links. till you realize that these can fit 2-3 links and give the same bonuses as t3's thus its may be cheaper to have links in space.
Except T3s can fit 5-6 links and are slightly tankier, nullified and can cloak. Im going to assume fitting 2-3 links on one of these will mean 0 tank.
I like the fact that these will make the linked "elite pvpers" in lowsec rage when i jump their link boat off their safety gate/station and kill it when theyre in the middle of a fight. Best case scenario is their link boat dies, and then their ship dies too when they lose links.
If they move their link ship out into a safe, then it can combat probed and killed that way. Either way, the risk averse linked pansies will have to actually risk something now instead of relying on 99.9% safe links hugging a station/gate.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1952
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 19:32:22 -
[374] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Just a suggestion here, but perhaps prevent use of these if they are within a certain range of a Stargate or a Station. The reason being that this could potentially kill a lot of PvP. I think there should be no restriction. The main reason is i want to see cowardly link alts who hug stations/gates to get killed as frequently as possible by MJDing them away from their 99% safe area and get wrecked. Cant wait for links to be changed, lowsec is pure cancer right now because of this. To the point we have linked breachers and comets flying around. Ill happily take negative sec status and welp a few CD to kill these cowards hiding behind links. till you realize that these can fit 2-3 links and give the same bonuses as t3's thus its may be cheaper to have links in space. Except T3s can fit 5-6 links and are slightly tankier, nullified and can cloak. Im going to assume fitting 2-3 links on one of these will mean 0 tank. I like the fact that these will make the linked "elite pvpers" in lowsec rage when i jump their link boat off their safety gate/station and kill it when theyre in the middle of a fight. Best case scenario is their link boat dies, and then their ship dies too when they lose links. If they move their link ship out into a safe, then it can combat probed and killed that way. Either way, the risk averse linked pansies will have to actually risk something now instead of relying on 99.9% safe links hugging a station/gate.
This alone is worth the price of admission.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
244
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 19:34:00 -
[375] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Just a suggestion here, but perhaps prevent use of these if they are within a certain range of a Stargate or a Station. The reason being that this could potentially kill a lot of PvP. I think there should be no restriction. The main reason is i want to see cowardly link alts who hug stations/gates to get killed as frequently as possible by MJDing them away from their 99% safe area and get wrecked. Cant wait for links to be changed, lowsec is pure cancer right now because of this. To the point we have linked breachers and comets flying around. Ill happily take negative sec status and welp a few CD to kill these cowards hiding behind links. till you realize that these can fit 2-3 links and give the same bonuses as t3's thus its may be cheaper to have links in space. Except T3s can fit 5-6 links and are slightly tankier, nullified and can cloak. Im going to assume fitting 2-3 links on one of these will mean 0 tank. I like the fact that these will make the linked "elite pvpers" in lowsec rage when i jump their link boat off their safety gate/station and kill it when theyre in the middle of a fight. Best case scenario is their link boat dies, and then their ship dies too when they lose links. If they move their link ship out into a safe, then it can combat probed and killed that way. Either way, the risk averse linked pansies will have to actually risk something now instead of relying on 99.9% safe links hugging a station/gate.
links on one of these means it can jump back to station.
also 2 links fit with no fitting mods.
more people will be able to bring links is more what i was getting at. |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
361
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 19:41:40 -
[376] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Ylein Kashuken wrote:Can we activate this jump field directly at stations?
This might be nightmare for JF and station links :D Doesn't work on invulnerable ships. The undock timer and 'just jumped in' timer will give the JF plenty of time to jump or dock if the pilot's not an idiot.
It absolutely needs to not work on jump freighters. If it did, it would be fairly easy to gank JFs warping to the highsec gate after jumping into lowsec. All you have to do is time how long it takes for a JF to warp from the jump-in station to the highsec gate, and then just have a cloaked scout on the station grid call out the exact moment he enters warp. Spool up your command MJD 8 seconds before he arrives and you're pretty likely to drag him off. |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1324
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:06:37 -
[377] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Im going to assume fitting 2-3 links on one of these will mean 0 tank.
By fitting 2-3 links, you've also beaten the hull trait of *can fit one warfare link*. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
640
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:20:47 -
[378] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Im going to assume fitting 2-3 links on one of these will mean 0 tank. By fitting 2-3 links, you've also beaten the hull trait of *can fit one warfare link*.
Guess i need reading comprehension to 5 then. I was under the impression these were like t1 BCs. Oh well, even better then.
Lady Rift, these wont replace 5-6 link t3s anytime soon. Having a 1 link dessy vs a 6 linked nullified, cloaky t3 are 2 very different scenarios. 1 link does not create cancerous scenarios that we see in LS. Its the people with 5-6 linked CS/t3s that are the issue and give you a whole slew of bonuses that supplement each other.
I suppose you could have 6 of these dessies but that doesnt seem as efficient. I know most people who use links will ignore these for their t3s. Small gangs that want alil extra oomph will love these though.
Im mainly interested in the MJD feature.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
Heiian Conglomerate
623
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:31:49 -
[379] - Quote
Boyamin wrote:-1
Fix links first, then develop ships to provide on-grid support. Why on earth would you poop before you pull your pants off ?
Best analogy i've heard all year lol |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1952
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:36:55 -
[380] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Im going to assume fitting 2-3 links on one of these will mean 0 tank. By fitting 2-3 links, you've also beaten the hull trait of *can fit one warfare link*.
I thought it was made clear earlier on in this thread that they were like T1 Battlecruisers - they can fit one link. Theoretically, they could fit command processors to fit more links, but the fitting costs for command processors make that unlikely on these ships.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1952
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:38:14 -
[381] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Im mainly interested in the MJD feature.
The link aspect of these ships appears to be very niche, at best (inside shattered WH's). These ships are going to be awesome purely because of the micro jump drive thingy.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1625
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:43:20 -
[382] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:It absolutely needs to not work on jump freighters. If it did, it would be fairly easy to gank JFs warping to the highsec gate after jumping into lowsec. All you have to do is time how long it takes for a JF to warp from the jump-in station to the highsec gate, and then just have a cloaked scout on the station grid call out the exact moment he enters warp. Spool up your command MJD 8 seconds before he arrives and you're pretty likely to drag him off.
Keep an exit cyno ready to light when you're in lowsec. Someone does this to you, you light immediately and bounce. And that, btw, is also only applicable if the 'doesn't affect invulnerable ships' isn't in effect - because you've got those seconds when you come out of warp when you can't be targeted yet, because the system hasn't changed your state. Make sure you spam 'jump' when you're coming in, and you should be ok.
The real question is: these things don't need to target. If I'm 5km away from one of these things when it goes off, and I've already heard 'warp drive active', will I warp from the new location? If it works like a normal MJD, the code-side effect seems to be purely 'changing location to these coordinates in space' - speed, targeting, module cycling, none of it changes. Normal MJDs, though, can't be activated on a ship entering warp, and prevent you from initiating warp if it's cycling up. Will this prevent warps, or just bounce the start point by 100km? (assuming the endpoint wouldn't move 100km in the same direction.) |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
168
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 20:48:12 -
[383] - Quote
Will ships that are currently lighting a cyno be moved by the jump?
If they are moved, will the cyno spot move or remain in the original position?
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2722
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 21:25:21 -
[384] - Quote
If a fleet of 100 of these all activate MJFG at the same time, will they jump 10,000km away? Will it crash the server?
I think it's worth considering forcing them to restart the MJFG after being jumped, that way it gives snipers a brief chance to take them out before they get away.
I'm imagining a scenario in which a destroyer fleet is brawling with an Apocalypse/Bhaalgorn fleet. The destroyers are slowly losing ships due to the Bhaalgorn's neuts and webs allowing Apocalypses to hit with gleam ammo. Their fleet is bubbled so they have one of their command destroyers activate the MJFG to get out of the bubble so they can warp away. As soon as the MJFG goes active, the battleship FC tells all apocalypse pilots to activate sensor boosters and switch to aurora ammo. Soon as the destroyers land they're still targeted by the apocalypses, who fire and take out half the remaining destroyer fleet in seconds before they manage to warp off.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Midori Tsu
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
144
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 21:26:47 -
[385] - Quote
For counter gameplay options could Micro Jump Drive Disruption bubbles be introduced? They did show up in the database at one point so i know the idea isn't that far out there. Would be cool to give this to heavy interdictors to give them another thing to do.
I think the fact that the only counter game play to this mechanic is scramblers or killing the command destroyer is very disappointing. More options would be great. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2715
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 23:02:46 -
[386] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:
Keep an exit cyno ready to light when you're in lowsec. Someone does this to you, you light immediately and bounce. And that, btw, is also only applicable if the 'doesn't affect invulnerable ships' isn't in effect - because you've got those seconds when you come out of warp when you can't be targeted yet, because the system hasn't changed your state. Make sure you spam 'jump' when you're coming in, and you should be ok.
The real question is: these things don't need to target. If I'm 5km away from one of these things when it goes off, and I've already heard 'warp drive active', will I warp from the new location? If it works like a normal MJD, the code-side effect seems to be purely 'changing location to these coordinates in space' - speed, targeting, module cycling, none of it changes. Normal MJDs, though, can't be activated on a ship entering warp, and prevent you from initiating warp if it's cycling up. Will this prevent warps, or just bounce the start point by 100km? (assuming the endpoint wouldn't move 100km in the same direction.)
You aren't invulnerable in warp, since you can be smart bombed once you are on grid.
So the above posters concern is actually serious for slower ships, since it takes you a long time to exit warp. |
Shagmar Gera
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 23:04:36 -
[387] - Quote
I just tested it on Singularity. And since so many people were asking...
So far:
The MJFG does jump bastioned marauders.
It does not jump freighters, or Orcas.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
2442
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 23:16:04 -
[388] - Quote
Shagmar Gera wrote:I just tested it on Singularity. And since so many people were asking...
So far:
The MJFG does jump bastioned marauders.
It does not jump freighters, or Orcas.
EDIT: Also! I MFJG'd a cyno ship. The Ship moved but the cyno stayed put.
The marauder and cyno are really bad. Hopefully bugs. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
171
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 23:24:38 -
[389] - Quote
Shagmar Gera wrote:I just tested it on Singularity. And since so many people were asking...
So far:
The MJFG does jump bastioned marauders.
It does not jump freighters, or Orcas.
EDIT: Also! I MFJG'd a cyno ship. The Ship moved but the cyno stayed put.
Thanks for checking and reporting back! Interesting that in this case the orca/JF counts as a capital ship in this case. Very very interesting.
The cyno thing is the most amazing thing. light the cyno with a tanky ship, then jump it away. your capitals jumping in will all stay put. very interesting indeed.
EDIT: the marauder thing i'm not too sure about. I can see that one going either way.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
2722
|
Posted - 2015.11.18 23:42:13 -
[390] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:It does not jump freighters, or Orcas.
Interesting that in this case the orca/JF[/quote]
When he said "jump freighters" he was talking about freighters (not jump freighters) being jumped by the MJFG.
It's probably the same for regular freighters and jump freighters.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |