EVE Search - Tux, are you happy with the state of Combat?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tux, are you happy with the state of Combat?

» 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)
Romulan Dominiae	Posted - 2007.01.15 08:51:00 - [31] short range and long range is fine. i also think nano ships are fine, its just another option you have. diversity is what makes eve so nice. i agree tho that AoE weapons would be great!
Nahia Senne Fortunis Novum	Posted - 2007.01.15 09:26:00 - [32] flak ammo/explosive shell ammo/explosive missiles (no, not the damage type). all these appeal to me. add rof nerf on these types of ammo and 7km AOE effect, and we have solved all of our blobby problems.
Jin Freaks	Posted - 2007.01.15 10:03:00 - [33] I agree with the problems stated by the OP allthough i tend to not agree with the changes. Instead of increasing short range I would say decrease long range. Furthermore nerf the agillity bonus so that nano is still possible but only in a straight line. I still think of minni as the long range race so they should stay at long range. Ammar need a buf and so does gallente short range. EW should still be number and chance based so that would make caldari the EW race again. I however have no idea how blobwarfare should be fixed. Not by AoE it was removed for a very good reason. Allthough I still hate the nerf of tracking (sig vs tracking). BS should be able to wreck all ><
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 10:43:00 - [34] Originally by: Maeltstome Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 14/01/2007 22:40:39 Insane speed setups simply remove 100MN MWDÆs from the game. Nano-Battleships using Afterburners will still be able approach the speeds of MWDÆing cruisers what ARE you smoking. PLENTY of non-nano ships use 100mn microwarps, and what your saying would basically KILL close range battleships, if they ahve to fit a full rack of nano's in the lows just to reach 1k/s that means dropping their entire tank for 3/4 races of the game. My advice? get better interceptors, no interceptor should be out-paced by a nano-BS if its fitted for speed, christ sae you can get a crusader to over 17k/s. This is jsut another "nerf nano ships" thread in diguise. I think you'll find other than the typhoon and some VERY expensive faction fitted ship, most nano-ships are actually pretty ***. If your in a gang a nano ship wont pose a threat, however if your out ratting in your raven in a belt, it will own you (unless you have the sense to go INTO an asteroid belt.) Stop getting things nerfed just cause you cant think as outside of the box as the pilots who invented these setups have. Actually the main thrust of the argument is making short-range ships more useful in larger scale combat. If they start more of the fights inside of their weapon range* (ergo buff optimal and falloff) then they have less need of manouvering, certainly requiring attempts at MWD over to the enemy fleet, achieving nothing while the ranged ships do the damage. Making Afterburners more used, and reducing the need for MWD (and hence insane speed nano-setups) is a side-effect of the boosted short range weapons. The Tempest doesnÆt æhit wellÆ at 36km, that is Optimal (6km) + Falloff (30km) meaning a 50% damage reduction. æHitting wellÆ is generally Optimal + 50% Falloff which in that case is 21kmà. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 10:50:00 - [35] Originally by: X99 Z990 Edited by: X99 Z990 on 15/01/2007 04:20:48 Edited by: X99 Z990 on 15/01/2007 04:20:22 With those changes proposed you could have extemely high damage mega pulse sniper abaddon at 100km+ with 3x tracking mods. And if you didnt boost the pulses the "medium ranged" pulse lasers wouldnt have a defined advantage over the "short ranged blasters" and autocannons can hit far fine so basically its just a boost to blasters which dont really need it, they just nerfed the range on null ammo and you are basically asking to undo that nerf again. the hyperion has all that extra capacitor and the 5 med slots because its designed to mount a MWD. The changes just seem unnecessary. Which is where it is fundamentally flawed for larger scale combat, you simply cannot afford to spend that time as a non-factor in a battle (while MWD'ing over to the enemy). By the time you do get to your target chances are the longer range ships in your fleet will have destroyed it, or it will have warped off. 50% is a ballpark figure (Null has had no change to its range by the way), it could of course be more or less than that, but the fact remains Blasters in particular, are of no use in most situations now given the ever-increasing combat ranges. An entire racial doctrine is broken... ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Luna Windforce	Posted - 2007.01.15 10:53:00 - [36] Edited by: Luna Windforce on 15/01/2007 10:49:22 If you wanna nerf blobs, give ships a scan resolution malus for every ship that is in gang or nearer than 50km... so if you have 50 ships in gang you can lock 200km, if you have 100 only 150, etc. That way people can't bring their whole blob into system ... otherwise they'd not be able to lock before downtime.
Djerin Obsidian Exploration Services The Pentagram	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:04:00 - [37] While i'm not too sure about most of the suggested changes i admit, that those nano battleships are insane. A typhoon going like more than 5000 m/s, now thats way to fast. Although i have t pay may respect to the ones using these setups effectively i think this is way outa line. A phoon setup like this can stop it's target from warping away, is hard to hit with any kind of weapon and still manages to hit with it's torps. I know it has a tank of paper once it's tackled but that is kind of difficult if it outraces most tacklers. My suggestion would be: apply the nano- / inertia-bonus to the ships base values only. Do so with the mwd-bonus too. Do not allow the nano-/inertia-mods to effect the mwd. But on the other hand: if you don't i'll have to stick with it. It's not like a magical or secret thing. regards
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:08:00 - [38] Originally by: Goumindong I was short last time, but that is about all this thread deserves. 1) Increasing the range of all ships will increase the range advantage Amarr have. This is the single reason why the Armageddon is such a good battleship. Increasing this farther will make it even stronger. 2) If you simultainiously kill the ability of battleships to MWD then you farhther increase the dominance of the Armageddon that you just boosted. 67.5km? That is utterly ridiculous. Can you imagine trying to close 30km with an afterburner against a 750 dps @ 67.5km and 950 DPS @ 45km armageddon? Assuming you hit 333m/s then the Armageddon will do some 67500 damage to you before you get in range[no drones] 3) Long range ships, for the most part, suffer in damage due to tracking issues and fitting issues[aside from a few types of medium range rail-boat] that are not present in short range ships. Similarly they do not have the quality of tech 2 ammo that short range ships do, further reducing their damage. 4) This change would utterly destroy ships smaller than battleships. As it stands the only short range ship able to bring its guns to bear on a target withlout moving is the Armageddon [and the Maelstrom with falloff rigs, which would have 74km falloff in your exmaple with a 6 slot tank(5 mid, 1 low), injector, full rack of damage mods, and a slot to spare] 5) Ranged AoE damage will not reduce gang sizes. It will simply move ships farther away from each other. Now instead of a blob of battleships in the distance you have a wall off battleships in the distance. Is that any better? No. The gang is still in the same grid still bringing as many battleships to the game as it can. Not to mention that at 900 M/S the fleet battle will be pretty much over and ravens tossing that blob damage destroyed by the time they get to the fleet. All in all, these changes herald the end of cruiser combat, the complete and utter dominance of the Armageddon and the Abaddon[with cap use rigs], and the end of most long range setups in non-large scale fleet ops. 1/ And with good reason, boosting the range on Blasters/Autocannons while leaving Pulses alone would unbalance the three, however perhaps pulses could have a smaller percentage boost to maintain their mid-range advantage whilst not pushing the top end of the range too far.... 2/see 1/ - I never said 50% was some kind of sacred number, it is a reasonable ball-park figure for the Blasters and Autocannons to bring them up-to-date with the current combat ranges, pulses could be given a slightly smaller boost to account for the much larger base optimal range. 3/Excuse me, but short range ships have more tracking issues than long range ships precisely because their current ranges are too shortà You will never see a long range Battleship having severe issues hitting another battleship due to transversal at optimal range. Short-range ships have horrendous problems that are only partially masked by the Megathrons tracking bonus... 4/This makes no sense, "Will utterly destroy ships smaller than battleships...", where? how? 5/It's not about reducing gang sizes, its about forcing them to spread out, if you force ships to spread out you reduce the size of the 'coconut of death' given battleships do still have limited range that isn't the same as the size of the grid... It won't though, fleet battles can and do go on for tens of minutes (and it wasn't aimed for ravens, you'll note I was specifically talking about these torpedo's as a desirable secondary weapon system) the idea being that against a tightly packed bunch, if you all fired torpedoes at a separate targets, no-one would be a 'torpedo primary' (and hence be tempted to warp out) yet the overlapping blast radii would ensure large scale damage to battleships in that tightly packed blob. The 900 m/sec velocity is there to prevent faster ships getting swatted too easily by these torpedoes. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:17:00 - [39] Reducing long range weapons back inline with Castor (80km was more the norm) would be an option too, though I thought it more interesting to boost short range weapons optimals + falloffs allowing Afterburners to be used over MWD's (hence solving the 'nano-battleship' situation at the same time) As for torpedoes, they were amusing when they had a true blast radius, but people moaned about Concord getting irate, hence why rather than going back to that, having a 'shaped charge' (i.e. current) and 'fragmentation (i.e. proposed 'Blast') torpedoes. Got to keep those Raven pilots happy... Just some thoughts, more feedback welcome ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Leandro Salazar Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:19:00 - [40] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 15/01/2007 11:23:04 Quote: 50% is a ballpark figure (Null has had no change to its range by the way), it could of course be more or less than that, but the fact remains Blasters in particular, are of no use in most situations now given the ever-increasing combat ranges. An entire racial doctrine is broken... It is not broken. It works fine where I live. There is no battleship I fear more than a T2 Blasterthron. Yes I only do small gang combat. So the Blasterthron doesn't work in fleet boredom. Fine with me. The Railthron isn't exactly hot in small gangs either. Use the correct tool for the correct work. Don't screw up the tool for my way to make it work in your way too. And a blanket 50% range increase on all short range weaps and especially scrams would screw up small gang combat quite badly imho. As for nanobattleships, nerfing the modules' speed/agility attributes should not be the way to go imho as that also nerfs the innocent nano users (Indies, Courier-Frigs). Maybe some sort of penalty a'la WCS on nanos and inerts? Not as harsh, maybe only 25% so you can still fit small amounts viably, but 3+ will screw up your targeting? --------- ZOMG my sig was concordokkened! Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:24:00 - [41] On the Nanoships i think best solution must not be restrictive. Or minmatar combat style is gone. I would say mak ethe nanofiber speed boost be a percentage of speed, not a fixed ammount. That way battleships will have a hard time achieving high speed. Lets say something on the 10% level. This would also increase the difference between minmatar and other races on speed setups.For example this change would mean about 75ms less BASE speed on a Typoon. That would reflect for almost 1 km/s less speed. Even more hit for a Dominix. But a stabber would continue with teh same speed. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:26:00 - [42] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Quote: 50% is a ballpark figure (Null has had no change to its range by the way), it could of course be more or less than that, but the fact remains Blasters in particular, are of no use in most situations now given the ever-increasing combat ranges. An entire racial doctrine is broken... It is not broken. It works fine where I live. There is no battleship I fear more than a T2 Blasterthron. Yes I only do small gang combat. So the Blasterthron doesn't work in fleet boredom. Fine with me. The Railthron isn't exactly hot in small gangs either. Use the correct tool for the correct work. Don't screw up the tool for my way to make it work in your way too. And a blanket 50% range increase on all short range weaps and especially scrams would screw up small gang combat quite badly imho. As for nanobattleships, nerfing the modules should not be the way to go imho as that also nerfs the innocent nano users (Indies, Courier-Frigs). Maybe some sort of penalty a'la WCS on nanos and inerts? Not as harsh, maybe only 25% so you can still fit small amounts viably, but 3+ will screw up your targeting? Then that's fine, I on the other hand am of the opinion that it isn't fine and they should be able to play a role in larger scale combat... ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:40:00 - [43] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Then that's fine, I on the other hand am of the opinion that it isn't fine and they should be able to play a role in larger scale combat... Uhhh, put rails on them and out-range every other battleship but the Rokh? With easy fitting to boot. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.01.15 11:58:00 - [44] There's nothing wrong with short range guns. The trick to using them is to make sure that you're the one who decides upon the range of the encounter. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori It's great being Amarr, ain't it?
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 12:12:00 - [45] Originally by: Rodj Blake There's nothing wrong with short range guns. The trick to using them is to make sure that you're the one who decides upon the range of the encounter. Everyone knows that, but my argument is this: they need a little help particularly given the increase in Combat ranges over the last 3 years, and even in a 30km fight, a ship having to MWD all over the place to get into contact is of little use compared to ship that can sit at 30km and fire from the word go. Not asking for a ship to compete in the 80km+ range with the likes of Railguns and Artillery, but being able to operate from 10-40km with an Afterburner for limited manouvering would make things interesting and allow realisation of the Gallente Blasters + Drones doctrine in larger scale battles. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
AGGRO PULLER	Posted - 2007.01.15 12:16:00 - [46] Let me get this right, you are asking for blasterthron buff in medium range?
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.15 12:18:00 - [47] Please read the entirety of the OP first ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.15 12:20:00 - [48] Originally by: AGGRO PULLER Let me get this right, you are asking for blasterthron buff in medium range? That is exactly what he is asking for. He wants slow battleships so that if you warp in at the wrong spot you must warp out in order to win the battle and he wants the operating ranges of all short range battleships weapons extended. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Jordan Musgrat	Posted - 2007.01.15 18:09:00 - [49] I really don't see much of a problem with anything but uber fast BS. So. Put the stacking penalty on nanos, give blasters a 10% range boost, and a 25% tracking boost. This would give them a slight boost, and of course blasters have always had a problem with tracking. You might could give them the 25% tracking and leave the range alone. There need to be penalties that accompany fitting short range weapons, like them being...... short range. Keep the MWD. It is fun.
Galen Silas Gallente Mean Corp	Posted - 2007.01.15 18:44:00 - [50] Here is something, make it to where you can only fit one Nanofiber on a ship, and give it a serious structure penalty. Or how about this, make it give you a serious structure penalty, and they cannot be used in conjuntion with a MWD because the weakened state of the hull would not be able to handle such a powerful form of propulsion. If the entire subject is about oen setup then there wouldn't of been weapon descriptions or gun ranges really, things are kinda limited, it's either your sniping, or stuck on them like a hemoroid. There is always going to eb something that needs to be changed though, no game is ever perfect. I will say thought hat a real problem is the nanofiber thing, think about it. Why would anyone really want to weaken the hull of there ship and then go and fight, seems like wrapping yourself in armor made of toothpicks. Nanofibers should only be used primarily for transport or maybe 1 for a little extra speed boost. Inertia stabs really aren't bad, all they do is increase agility. You can still catch someone who's ship is agile, I would rather take my chances against them than overwhelming speed. Atm I am pretty content with combat in EVE, it's just those people who decide to use those lamer setups like nanofibers and stay away from a fight and ruin the whole combat aspect of EVE... Pansies.
Mar vel Caldari H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.01.16 07:47:00 - [51] At the risk of thread hijacking, i see several parts to the OP. The title, however, is reflective of Combat mechanics (in general). Basically we've gotten into a ***ing contest about MWD/Nano and ranged weapons. I would humbly submit to this quorum that game mechanics (architecture) is a more serious problem than balance* issues. HOW you engage, and under WHAT conditions impacts 90% of your arguments. You have a static playing field, and without elements (conditions, rules, etc.) that force you to think intellignetly about HOW you engage, it will always be the same old equation of gate camps, POS wars, sniping and BLOB-A-LAG-fests. Plainly put, balance isn;t what is crippling the combat experience, game mechanics is - and no amount of content or balancing is going to make that go away. And by Game Mechnics I mean two things, particularly.First -how the game is played, and under what conditions; second, technical limtations. I've described the first (i hope), the second one is basically an inability for CCP to re-invent the game based upon known limitations. f.ex (as it pertains to Fleet combat) - the realization that you cannot have a real world combat sim involving hundreds of players over a globally distributed WAN that is based in real time - hence the LAG. Latency (technology) will simply not allow it to take place the way it is intended ON THAT SCALE - and that's a fact. Other mechanics issues are abound, but this is an example that everyone has probably encountered. Take what you have and work with the limitations - scale back if necessary. Content (balancing) only wins the day if the gaming experience (playability, storyline, realism, challenge is there to support it) Otherwise, its an exercise in futility. Tell me this: As it relates to combat, who is the target market? What do they have to have to be sated (to keep those subscritpion dollars flowing) is it an ROF bonus on a laser, a nano nerf, or is it the ability to combat effectively to scale, or the ability to play in time slices without haveing to donate your entire evening to execute some battle plan or simple combat. Noodle on that.
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2007.01.16 07:53:00 - [52] So basically you want to make blaster boats uber at fleet too? No. Only actual mechanics that I think suck atm, besides the whole "more ships = win" thing, is the ******* redock/jump timer. Needs to be increased, and increased much more for capitals due to their HP boost. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it?
Laboratus Gallente BGG	Posted - 2007.01.16 07:58:00 - [53] Originally by: Tasty Burger So basically you want to make blaster boats uber at fleet too? No. Only actual mechanics that I think suck atm, besides the whole "more ships = win" thing, is the ******* redock/jump timer. Needs to be increased, and increased much more for capitals due to their HP boost. EW makes the "more ships=win" untrue. One of the great things in eve. Unfortunately they nerfed ECM, so it is less so. Yea, station hugging is bad, but can anyone think of how to change that? ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Mar vel Caldari H.Y.D.R.A. GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.01.16 08:07:00 - [54] The more ships i-win thing is a prime example of what I am describing in game mechanics. U cannot play individually or even in small gangs within this game any longer, and that's bad. Don;t know where you got the bit about blaster boats - i could care less about any ships/mods as a part of my post I think we have been trained to think about features, and in terms of nerf (balance to get the game mechanics to where they need to be to sustain interest and challenging environments, and we're witnessing the limitation of that fix. think less about statistical elements, and more about how people engage in combat - that's what good software design is all about. Originally by: Tasty Burger So basically you want to make blaster boats uber at fleet too? No. Only actual mechanics that I think suck atm, besides the whole "more ships = win" thing, is the ******* redock/jump timer. Needs to be increased, and increased much more for capitals due to their HP boost.
Quantasia	Posted - 2007.01.16 08:45:00 - [55] its all about measurement and countermeasurement, but thats simply not given anymore. the most annoing thing is the nano/inertia setups where, vagas are going over 7k speed and nanophoons might reach even more. thats clearly faster as any missiles in the game - so if u are a caldari u got not even to think about engaging. the only way to counter it is bringing more nanophoons etc - just blobbage, and this sucks. the versatility is going down as hell since ppl. overuse this game "feature" more and more. nerf this damn nano setups!!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.16 10:13:00 - [56] I really cant see why people are complaining so much about nano ships. Vagabonds were as fast since always and nanophoons also. Just is that now without core stabs the people that want a chance to run away go to this approach. You asked for the stab nerf! Now face the consequences! No you cannot have a combat where there is ZERO chance of escaping! And try using a AC tempest with 2 Tracking computers.. It can track a nanophoon VERY EASILY!!!! And will obliterate it! The people complainign are mostly Raven only pilots that think torpedoes must defeat anything! SAo if its not with speed. How can a typhoon defeat a Raven? How can any Minmatar BS defeat a tanked BS? We are about speed, and speed shall we have! You cant limit nanofibers without making ships like stabber become crap! Stop looking only at your own combat style! Restrict Snakes and Uber gisty MWD and no BS will be moving faster than 3 km/s If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.01.16 10:50:00 - [57] Originally by: Tasty Burger So basically you want to make blaster boats uber at fleet too? No. Only actual mechanics that I think suck atm, besides the whole "more ships = win" thing, is the ******* redock/jump timer. Needs to be increased, and increased much more for capitals due to their HP boost. Hardly 'uber', simply able to play a part alongside the longer range stuff i.e. longer range component warping in/out at 100-200km, while the shorter range operating at up to 40-50km (a more dangerous range to operate at, but hey if we can take part in the battle...) taking advantage of the transversal velocity obtained with an afterburner. Short range ships, having spare grid left, would be more able to fit siege launchers in those spare slots, slinging AoE torpedos into the enemy blob. I don't particularly like MWD's on Battleships, I don't like seeing Battleships going multiple km/sec and I don't like the fact a short range Battleship has a very limited role beyond 1 vs 1. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Kunming Outcasts	Posted - 2007.01.16 12:09:00 - [58] TBH I'd rather see a dmg increase instead of a range increase on the short range guns, atm we are talking about a 35% dmg advantage while the long range guns have a 600% range advantage. Short range guns should do twice the dmg, period! Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.01.16 12:26:00 - [59] The problem with is change is the fact that with the current warp scrambling mechanism mid-range weapons don't work well. You are too far away to hold down the target meaning he can just warp away and you are too close to the target to avoid it if it wants to come to you. Amarr is seeing it at the moment with large pulses being mid range. What this change will do is make pulses useful by pushing them to close to long range. But it will push large ACs into mid range (which compared to blasters they more or less already are, but this will make it worse). With this change you either choose blasters as they will be with no competition the best weapon from 0 to 20km. Or you choose pulses/long range guns so you can be far enough away to avoid the blaster ships. This leave no role left for large ACs (if they ever had any). Right now assuming best skills, t2 long range ammo, no tracking mods (any tracking mod will effect blasters much more than ACs as they don't effect falloff) blaster mega will out damage ACs tempest out to 23km, with this change they will out damage ACs to 34km. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Kunming Outcasts	Posted - 2007.01.16 12:44:00 - [60] Originally by: Hoshi The problem with is change is the fact that with the current warp scrambling mechanism mid-range weapons don't work well. You are too far away to hold down the target meaning he can just warp away and you are too close to the target to avoid it if it wants to come to you. Amarr is seeing it at the moment with large pulses being mid range. What this change will do is make pulses useful by pushing them to close to long range. But it will push large ACs into mid range (which compared to blasters they more or less already are, but this will make it worse). With this change you either choose blasters as they will be with no competition the best weapon from 0 to 20km. Or you choose pulses/long range guns so you can be far enough away to avoid the blaster ships. This leave no role left for large ACs (if they ever had any). Right now assuming best skills, t2 long range ammo, no tracking mods (any tracking mod will effect blasters much more than ACs as they don't effect falloff) blaster mega will out damage ACs tempest out to 23km, with this change they will out damage ACs to 34km. You are forgeting that Projectiles use no cap while blasters use tons of it. And the fact that ac boats can usually dictate their range over the slow-ass blasterboats, not to forget the 2 spare HI slots minnie ships always fit some NOS/Neutz. We cant go around balance weapons without thinking about the ships they are fitted on. If Amarr ships had alot of mids the mid range thingy wouldnt be a problem, or if gallente boats had alot of cap and speed then your assumptions would be quite correct. Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.

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.