Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skylar Keenan
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 00:39:00 -
[31]
Akita, what I don't understand about your argument is that why in the seven hells does it matter how the progression is ? The GOAL here is to make a high-damage short-range missile weapon for the battleship class.
CCP (and to a certain degree the players) need to decide on a range for such a high-damage weapon as the torpedoes are becoming that IS BALANCED with the others.
Balanced means that it perform roughly as effectively as the others, not giving rise to an insane missile powerhouse of doom. Thus we need to find said range at which it is reasonable to do 1.000 DpS in a battleship.
I TOTALLY fail to see how it matters whether it has the same range as HAMs. Saying that "Autocannons get 2x range, thus missiles should get it too" is garbage because it doesn't have any bearing on the act of balancing torpedos. Just cause there is a pattern, why does all weapons have to follow it. If they gave the Raven 2.000 DpS would you still put out the same argument? That just because the others get 2x range per size level, so should torpedos?
Wow, this turned into a rant.... cool ----------------------------------------------- New sig coming SoonÖ |
Transcendant One
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 00:40:00 -
[32]
Originally by: d026 the raven can dish out 988 pure missile dps (no drones included) from 30.6k with rage (ok effective range may differ 1-5k). you just cant give this kind of dps more range.. the mega can dish out 949 gun dps at 6.8k optimal! almost 1k dps at 60k on the raven would just be stupidly overpowered..
This.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:21:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Skylar Keenan Akita, what I don't understand about your argument is that why in the seven hells does it matter how the progression is ? The GOAL here is to make a high-damage short-range missile weapon for the battleship class.
CCP (and to a certain degree the players) need to decide on a range for such a high-damage weapon as the torpedoes are becoming that IS BALANCED with the others.
Balanced means that it perform roughly as effectively as the others, not giving rise to an insane missile powerhouse of doom. Thus we need to find said range at which it is reasonable to do 1.000 DpS in a battleship.
I TOTALLY fail to see how it matters whether it has the same range as HAMs. Saying that "Autocannons get 2x range, thus missiles should get it too" is garbage because it doesn't have any bearing on the act of balancing torpedos. Just cause there is a pattern, why does all weapons have to follow it. If they gave the Raven 2.000 DpS would you still put out the same argument? That just because the others get 2x range per size level, so should torpedos?
Wow, this turned into a rant.... cool
It matters, because if torps are overpowered short-range weapons for a battleship with a 40km base range, then HAMs and rockets are ALSO definetely overpowered with 20 and 10 km respectively as short-range weapons for cruisers and frigates.
So you EITHER nerf HAM/rocket range to follow x2 progression, OR you boost back torp range SLIGHTLY (not anywhere near the 82+km range they had) to follow the x2 progression.
Anything other than that is pure nonsense. WHICH course of action you pick doesn't mater, fine by me either way. Just pick one of the above. _
1|2|3 |
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:23:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Skylar Keenan Akita, what I don't understand about your argument is that why in the seven hells does it matter how the progression is ? The GOAL here is to make a high-damage short-range missile weapon for the battleship class.
CCP (and to a certain degree the players) need to decide on a range for such a high-damage weapon as the torpedoes are becoming that IS BALANCED with the others.
Balanced means that it perform roughly as effectively as the others, not giving rise to an insane missile powerhouse of doom. Thus we need to find said range at which it is reasonable to do 1.000 DpS in a battleship.
I TOTALLY fail to see how it matters whether it has the same range as HAMs. Saying that "Autocannons get 2x range, thus missiles should get it too" is garbage because it doesn't have any bearing on the act of balancing torpedos. Just cause there is a pattern, why does all weapons have to follow it. If they gave the Raven 2.000 DpS would you still put out the same argument? That just because the others get 2x range per size level, so should torpedos?
Wow, this turned into a rant.... cool
It matters, because if torps are overpowered short-range weapons for a battleship with a 40km base range, then HAMs and rockets are ALSO definetely overpowered with 20 and 10 km respectively as short-range weapons for cruisers and frigates.
So you EITHER nerf HAM/rocket range to follow x2 progression, OR you boost back torp range SLIGHTLY (not anywhere near the 82+km range they had) to follow the x2 progression.
Anything other than that is pure nonsense. WHICH course of action you pick doesn't mater, fine by me either way. Just pick one of the above.
I agree, nerf hams and rockets.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:23:00 -
[35]
Edited by: d026 on 18/10/2007 01:23:59
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Skylar Keenan Akita, what I don't understand about your argument is that why in the seven hells does it matter how the progression is ? The GOAL here is to make a high-damage short-range missile weapon for the battleship class.
CCP (and to a certain degree the players) need to decide on a range for such a high-damage weapon as the torpedoes are becoming that IS BALANCED with the others.
Balanced means that it perform roughly as effectively as the others, not giving rise to an insane missile powerhouse of doom. Thus we need to find said range at which it is reasonable to do 1.000 DpS in a battleship.
I TOTALLY fail to see how it matters whether it has the same range as HAMs. Saying that "Autocannons get 2x range, thus missiles should get it too" is garbage because it doesn't have any bearing on the act of balancing torpedos. Just cause there is a pattern, why does all weapons have to follow it. If they gave the Raven 2.000 DpS would you still put out the same argument? That just because the others get 2x range per size level, so should torpedos?
Wow, this turned into a rant.... cool
It matters, because if torps are overpowered short-range weapons for a battleship with a 40km base range, then HAMs and rockets are ALSO definetely overpowered with 20 and 10 km respectively as short-range weapons for cruisers and frigates.
So you EITHER nerf HAM/rocket range to follow x2 progression, OR you boost back torp range SLIGHTLY (not anywhere near the 82+km range they had) to follow the x2 progression.
Anything other than that is pure nonsense. WHICH course of action you pick doesn't mater, fine by me either way. Just pick one of the above.
are you insane? and if i have to choose yeah nerf rockets and hams:)
|
Transcendent One
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:30:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Transcendent One on 18/10/2007 01:35:42
The point Akita is missing is that while torps don't follow the range progression, it's because they don't follow the damage progression either. Rockets and HAMs do less damage at longer range than other same sized close range weapons. The new torps do not have similarly weak dps and that's what justifies them not getting twice ham range.
Originally by: Akita T
So you EITHER nerf HAM/rocket range to follow x2 progression, OR you boost back torp range SLIGHTLY (not anywhere near the 82+km range they had) to follow the x2 progression.
Anything other than that is pure nonsense. WHICH course of action you pick doesn't mater, fine by me either way. Just pick one of the above.
Yes, let's nerf HAMs and rockets which are most definately not overpowered because you are obsessive compulsive. Good thinking. I have another idea: pick none of the above because this isn't Akita online and the new torps are perfectly fine as they are.
|
d026
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:38:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Transcendent One Edited by: Transcendent One on 18/10/2007 01:35:42
The point Akita is missing is that while torps don't follow the range progression, it's because they don't follow the damage progression either. Rockets and HAMs do less damage at longer range than other same sized close range weapons. The new torps do not have similarly weak dps and that's what justifies them not getting twice ham range.
Originally by: Akita T
So you EITHER nerf HAM/rocket range to follow x2 progression, OR you boost back torp range SLIGHTLY (not anywhere near the 82+km range they had) to follow the x2 progression.
Anything other than that is pure nonsense. WHICH course of action you pick doesn't mater, fine by me either way. Just pick one of the above.
Yes, let's nerf HAMs and rockets which are most definately not overpowered because you are obsessive compulsive. Good thinking. I have another idea: pick none of the above because this isn't Akita online and the new torps are perfectly fine as they are.
learn from this man!:)
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:47:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Aramendel on 18/10/2007 01:49:22 Akita, instead of trying to compare torps with the other missiles compare the dps of the raven with that of other BS.
For example, The raven does now with jav torps slightly more DPS than a geddon with scorch and megapulses. Megapulses have a 45k optimal, jav torps have a theoretical max range of 45k.
And need no cap. And can get the full damage type spectrum and not even loosing any dps ther. A scorch geddon is 80% EM.
So all in all the raven is superior there. With a similar range. And you want to up the jav torp range??
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 01:53:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Transcendent One The point Akita is missing is that while torps don't follow the range progression, it's because they don't follow the damage progression either. Rockets and HAMs do less damage but at a longer range than other same sized close range weapons. The new torps do not have similarly weak dps and that's what justifies them not getting twice ham range.
Originally by: Akita T
So you EITHER nerf HAM/rocket range to follow x2 progression, OR you boost back torp range SLIGHTLY (not anywhere near the 82+km range they had) to follow the x2 progression. Anything other than that is pure nonsense. WHICH course of action you pick doesn't mater, fine by me either way. Just pick one of the above.
Yes, let's nerf HAMs and rockets which are most definately not overpowered because you are obsessive compulsive. Good thinking. I have another idea: pick none of the above because this isn't Akita online and the new torps are perfectly fine as they are.
You're still missing the point. Besides, WHAT IF I would be obsessive compulsive ? You make it sound like a bad thing for game balance issues, when it would be quite the opposite
The TORPEDO changes (both range and damage) were made so that TORPEDOS would supposedly become viable for PvP all of a sudden. Let's ASSUME for a moment that the "new torpedoes" we see right now (or very close to them) are somehow magically PERFECT for PvP. Eveything would be just peachy... range, DPS, volley damage, explosion radius/velocity and just about ANYTHING you can think of.
Now, the question is then are HAMs and rockets any good for PvP, compared to torpedoes ? The answer is "Bloody hell, not even close !" So, if you do plan on CHANGING the torpedoes like you do, then please, for the love of <insert favourite deity name here>, do the same for HAMs and rockets.
Just because most people ARE obsessing about battleship-level combat and ONLY battleship level combat doesn't mean cruiser/frigate combat is dead, neither that there are no ships using HAMs/rockets in PvP as we speak. So, if you rationalize one change (torps), do the freaking jump and use the same gorram rationale for HAMs and rockets !
Geez... the humanity. Pfft. _
1|2|3 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:03:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Aramendel on 18/10/2007 02:04:34
Originally by: Akita T Now, the question is then are HAMs and rockets any good for PvP, compared to torpedoes ? The answer is "Bloody hell, not even close !" So, if you do plan on CHANGING the torpedoes like you do, then please, for the love of <insert favourite deity name here>, do the same for HAMs and rockets.
Reducing their range & upping their damage will not really make rockets/HAMs better (and as a sidenote, they are actually pretty good *right now* on the right ships).
Giving rockets blaster ranges would make them weaker as they are now, same with HAMs. Their t1 non-shipbonus ranges are already relatively low with 10/20k, reducing them further would reduce their efficiency, even if you up the damage.
The (compared to cruise missiles) drastic range reduction of torps does work because the 0-30k range is where 90% of all shortrange combat happens.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:06:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 02:07:36
So then, please explain to me like I'm the crazy person everybody seems to think I am, what makes rockets/HAMs ok right now, but a similar range/damage progression torpedo would totally break ?
Why SHOULDN'T rockets/HAMs/torpedoes be "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is ? _
1|2|3 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:11:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 02:07:36
So then, please explain to me like I'm the crazy person everybody seems to think I am, what makes rockets/HAMs ok right now, but a similar range/damage progression torpedo would totally break ?
Why SHOULDN'T rockets/HAMs/torpedoes be "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is ?
First part of post #38.
|
Frug
Zenithal Harvest BROTHER'S WORD
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:23:00 -
[43]
Akita, you've somehow turned a topic about the torp changes into a whine about HAMs and rockets. Nobody wants to hear it. If you want to whine about other caldari stuff, make another thread on it so we can roll our eyes at yet another whine thread. Stop trying to convince us that just because torps are being changed that they also have to change rockets and hams, because they really really don't.
Caldari specialize in long range stuff. AFAIK they are the best in the game at that. The fact that they can't also do close range as good as the other races in all the ship classes is fine. In fact, they shouldn't be able to. The fact that they are finally getting a BS that CAN do it doesn't mean all their ship classes have to suit you.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles |
Tar Manis
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:27:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 02:07:36
So then, please explain to me like I'm the crazy person everybody seems to think I am, what makes rockets/HAMs ok right now, but a similar range/damage progression torpedo would totally break ?
Why SHOULDN'T rockets/HAMs/torpedoes be "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is ?
First part of post #38.
why should torps be an anomaly? Just to boost pvp? Lame. There are other reasons to keep torps in line such as progression and overall balance among races. Caldari are supposed to excell at long-range combat. Why must all races be the same?: Close range gank. If you kept torps in line and then increased damage it would still work.
Gallente=uber close Minmatar=close but falloff Amarr=mid to closer range Caldari=mid to farther range
If we make caldari the same as amarr ships will simply be cast aside because 1 race does it better.
|
Tar Manis
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:29:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Frug Akita, you've somehow turned a topic about the torp changes into a whine about HAMs and rockets. Nobody wants to hear it. If you want to whine about other caldari stuff, make another thread on it so we can roll our eyes at yet another whine thread. Stop trying to convince us that just because torps are being changed that they also have to change rockets and hams, because they really really don't.
Caldari specialize in long range stuff. AFAIK they are the best in the game at that. The fact that they can't also do close range as good as the other races in all the ship classes is fine. In fact, they shouldn't be able to. The fact that they are finally getting a BS that CAN do it doesn't mean all their ship classes have to suit you.
The fact that they are getting a BS to do it is wrong. It's an anomaly that upsets overall game balance. So caldari is bad at pvp. Too bad. The current metagame needs to be changed to allow caldari usage not to change ships or weapons.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:32:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 02:32:21
Originally by: Aramendel
Quote: Why SHOULDN'T rockets/HAMs/torpedoes be "aligned" with respect to fiting requirements, effective ranges and DPS outputs, in the same "alignment" as every other weapon system in EVE is ?
First part of post #38.
That only explains the "Raven with new torps is too good to have a longer range" issue. It however doesn't explain why rockets/HAMs shouldn't have a higher DPS and lower reach too.
ALL OTHER weapon systems in EVE follow a x2 range, x2 base ammo damage, x1.5 RoF time progression (fitting req. and sig/tracking issues aside). Not only that, but most weapons follow a rougher "shorter range means higher damage" progression that is not so easily quantified for turrets because of falloff coming into play (ignoring falloff would be insane, adding it directly into range calcs would be equally bad), and the comparison for missiles is even tougher to quantify.
Still, the +100% range and +33.33% DPS for each "higher" class of weapon is maintained in each and every part of the turret world. So, if you want to "balance" torpedoes with large blasters/ACs/pulses, then why not ALSO balance HAMs/rockets with med/small blasters/ACs/pulses ?!?
IF you give Siege Missile Launcher IIs a 14.4 RoF and T1 torps a 450 base damage with 20km reach, then give HAML-IIs a 9.6 RoF (instead of 6.4) and T1 HAMs 225 base damage (instead of 100) with 10km reach (instead of 20), and RL-IIs a 6.4 RoF (instead of 3.2) and T1 rockets 112/113 base damage (instead of 25) with 5km reach (instead of 10). Then all it's fair _
1|2|3 |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:49:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Akita T That only explains the "Raven with new torps is too good to have a longer range" issue. It however doesn't explain why rockets/HAMs shouldn't have a higher DPS and lower reach too.
Post #40
|
Zolian
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 02:58:00 -
[48]
Quote: Reducing their range & upping their damage will not really make rockets/HAMs better (and as a sidenote, they are actually pretty good *right now* on the right ships).
Giving rockets blaster ranges would make them weaker as they are now, same with HAMs. Their t1 non-shipbonus ranges are already relatively low with 10/20k, reducing them further would reduce their efficiency, even if you up the damage.
Statements, but where are your arguments? I'm especially having trouble seeing how higher damage lower range would not beneficiate rockets apart from on the Condor (lol).
For all practical purposes rockets operate in web range and are thus exposed to higher dps short range weapons.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 03:01:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Akita T on 18/10/2007 03:03:32
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Akita T That only explains the "Raven with new torps is too good to have a longer range" issue. It however doesn't explain why rockets/HAMs shouldn't have a higher DPS and lower reach too.
Post #40
So, you're telling me you WOULD care at all if rockets got a reduction from 10km (in web range already) to 5km on non-bonused ships, but for a double DPS compared to now ? Aw, come on, gimme' a break As for HAMs.... hmm... +50% DPS increase compared to now, for 10km range (just smack-dab in web range). Yeah, DEFINETELY bad trade-off, eh ? COME ON ! Doesn't anybody THINK ?
Besides, there's some Caldari ships (and not only Caldari ships) that have rocket/HAM range bonuses.
Crow and Hawk (putting it now at 15km, would finally have to get in 7.5km range or use javs, it COULD be a problem, but then again, Crow is definetely overpowered, and Hawk is meh-okish but still)... Condor is the "wtf who uses this" ship, so doesn't really matter... still, double DPS with rockets ? HELL YEAH. Flycatcher (which has more than enough speed and could use the HUGE DPS increase quite nicely) Caracal (and all variants, esp. Cerberus with double range bonus), which would get 15km (and 22.5km respectively), and a 50% extra DPS would be AWESOME Of course, there's also the Heretic (rockets) and Damnation (HAMs), which COULD both use the extra DPS badly too.
And what's there to speak against the DRAKE getting a makeover from ANY of its two bonuses to a missile velocity bonus ? For that matter, might as well do the same for the Nighthawk, a lot more bonuses to pick from.
Now you can staple me totally crazy _
1|2|3 |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:23:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Frug If you want to whine about other caldari stuff, make another thread on it so we can roll our eyes at yet another whine thread.
Wish granted. Linkage _
1|2|3 |
|
Dubious Drewski
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 04:50:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Dubious Drewski on 18/10/2007 04:50:33
Originally by: Gamesguy I agree, nerf hams and rockets.
Originally by: d026 yeah nerf rockets and hams:)
After reading endless "Caldari suck at pvp threads", I read this? So NOW Caldari are suddenly so good at pvp that they need a nerfing? Which is it?
Originally by: Slayton Ford a Drake is normally primaried last
And that's why I love that homely boat! |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 05:06:00 -
[52]
Haven't you read the newsbriefs ? Caldari are the kings of cruiser/frigate PvP [/sarcasm] _
1|2|3 |
E11
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 05:22:00 -
[53]
Caldari are getting a buff, finally. Shut your holes so it wont be the last.
|
tarin adur
Gallente Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 05:26:00 -
[54]
This may just be me but i think Caldari raven pilots are starting to get spoiled.
First they complain about Damage and so CCP gives them HAM,which they then turn arund and complain becuase it lacks range.
Now they Boost Dps(which caldari was once again whining about) and again you complain about range.
This is how it is,High dmg > Short range,learn to live with it or go abck to cruise missiles,simple as that.
My opinion of course. *flame suit on*
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 05:31:00 -
[55]
Hm. So jav range got nerfed, eh ? Guess I have to train up cruise afterall on my wingman alt for missions.
Pity about those guys who bought some overpriced javelin torp prints in the hope that missionrunners switch to those Then again javelin range with that RoF boost on siege launchers was too good to be true anyway.
|
Dragon Lord
Caldari InQuest Ascension R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 07:47:00 -
[56]
I dont have a problem with the range at all, my problem is that only a plated neut mega is slower and why fit plates on a mega when u absolutly have to get in range to do anything???? Make it so ravens can catch there targets and ill be happy, ie mwd raven can go as fast as mwd mega with no other mods on.
|
Brixer
Dai Dai Hai
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 08:04:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Dragon Lord I dont have a problem with the range at all, my problem is that only a plated neut mega is slower and why fit plates on a mega when u absolutly have to get in range to do anything???? Make it so ravens can catch there targets and ill be happy, ie mwd raven can go as fast as mwd mega with no other mods on.
Granted!
And I want 40km optimal on my Neutron Blasters IIs, with no tracking issues even if target sits ontop of me.. yeah! and btw, those blasters should only use 1 cap / shot... And while I'm at it, I want to be able to passive tank my armor.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 08:50:00 -
[58]
It would be so amusing just to forget about this torp change and let the whiners keep their torps as they are now. If you fail to see its a buff, you lose. Id be lol'ing all day. CCP lets just let em keep the old torps for funs sake.
|
ChimeraRouge
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 08:51:00 -
[59]
Edited by: ChimeraRouge on 18/10/2007 08:51:07
And I want 40km optimal on my Neutron Blasters IIs, with no tracking issues even if target sits ontop of me.. yeah! and btw, those blasters should only use 1 cap / shot... And while I'm at it, I want to be able to passive tank my armor.
This
|
Evenfall Phoenix
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.10.18 09:08:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Evenfall Phoenix on 18/10/2007 09:13:27 Edited by: Evenfall Phoenix on 18/10/2007 09:13:01 Quick question. Is the velocity on torps still slow as all hell? The one thing that made torps, or hell even cruise useless in PvP is the velocity. While cruise can be worked on and be used somewhat effectivly, torps just moved way too slow as compared to rockets and HAMS.
You see torps comming to you, all you have to do is increase speed out of a warp scram and run, or increase speed and get reduced damage from the torp. Or just warp away because missile damage isn't instant.
That's the other thing, missiles need a slightly higher dps at whatever range because they actually travel. On top of which you have the Caldari philosophy of range over up close fighting.
I've always seen torps as the Sieging weapons. Hell the launchers are Siege Launcher. In my mind that says slow and from a range to minimize damage to the sieger. Torps just never seemed like they were meant to be in line with rockets and HAMs. They just seemed like a different type of weapon meant for a different task.
*Edit* On top of which I almost never see torps being used in PvP to begin with aside from a PoS takedown. Torps are no good in a fleet fight, no good solo. The rule for PvP battleships seems to be "fit guns or die" and I don't really see how reducing the range on torps will change anything in that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |