Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gallente Heavy Bomber
6 Hi Slots 4 Launcher Hard Points 2 Bomb Hard Points 3 Mids 4 Lows
Structure 782 Armor 950 Resists 50% EM 10% EXP 83% Kin 67% Therm Shield 677 Resists 0% EM 50% EXP 85% KIN 60% Therm
Gallente Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to torpedo velocity per level
Heavy Bomber Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 10% bonus to torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus -99.65% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs Able to fit 2 bomb launchers
This is an Idea i have for a new class of ship It is a T2 destroyer that would be a capital hunting ship. With small sig and able to do bomb runs this would make alliances think twice about blobbing capitals. This is a quick concept please leave me feedback |

Danel Tosh
EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
i like this idea alot better than the old one, but still keep in mind that this ship could render Stealth Bommbers obsolete so you may want to remove a bomb launcher or two so its not completely overpowered. +1 |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
342
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 23:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
I think the lack of cloaking ability is meant to keep stealth bombers relevant. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 23:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
I feel the addition of the 2nd bomb launcher is a fair trade off for not being able to cloak. This is a heavy bomber not a torp destroyer. I though about making it use the same ammo as the fighter bombers so midget torpedos but that would require a new skill plus making new ammo for the game. But on the other hand I think it might make supers more interesting as they would have to carry ammo for there bombers just like carriers have to carry ammo for there aircraft today. |

Vrykolakasis
Trinity Operations Aurora Irae
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 00:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Disagreed. My thought is 4 launcher hardpoints set for torps, 0 bomb launcher hardpoints, no cloak, 6.00 AU/s warp, +75-100% torpedo damage, -150% torpedo cycle time, 2 mids (just enough for a point and a prop mod), 3 low.
However, teir 3 battlecruisers are already glass cannons with excellent damage potential. I'm unsure if this is necessary. I would like to see more destroyer hulls. |

Danel Tosh
EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 00:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
well if it cant cloak then i can see those bomb launchers on it. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 00:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
This is a ship designed to engage capital ships with that your saying this ship would be able to dish out extremely high DPS to any ship. If you feel the bomb launchers are to much What would you think of a New Kind of launcher that would only be able to fire on Capitals. Or make the Explosion radius so large that anything sup capital wouldn't be damaged by it all that much Kinda like my post about the midget torpedo Points on it so it does little better then SB damage with torps but with the other 2 hard points its a capital killer. |

tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 03:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
I would remove a mid or low (likely mid) and give it another high slot with another launcher hardpoint. if the iteron vs mega video teaches us, you can tank just about any ship with enough mids and lows, and robbing it of those mid/low slots will keep the ship as a spank vessel and not a tanky-dps thing. Where the science gets done |

leviticus ander
The Scope Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 03:27:00 -
[9] - Quote
ya, what you could do if it's an anti capital weapon, make it have something like a 200% bonus to travel speed, but about a 400% explosion radius increase. this way it would still hit caps pretty hard and would hit supers for full damage. maybe 6 hardpoints, but absolutely no damage boost, otherwise something this small and relatively cheap wouldn't be able to compete with things like dreads and titans on a damage scale. |

SGT FUNYOUN
Arachnea Phoenix Battalion Bringers of Death.
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 06:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
I myself suggested this once. It was shot own six ways to Sunday. it would basically break the mechanics of the SB fleet. |

Antal Marius
Black Aces Mining Div AAA Citizens
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 13:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
With the two bomb launchers and no amenities for a cov-ops cloak, I'm not too sure how it would really break the mechanics of an SB fleet. They two of them serve separate purposes, one is completely visible and the other is now |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
102
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 14:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
+1
A new vision for the destroyer, aiming at a target not usually considered.
And with no cloaking, it really isn't competing with the SB just because they both have launchers, totally different approaches. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 16:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
I think there would have to be a role bonus or maybe a skill bonus implemented so that the bombs would really only do damage to a capital ship so explosion radius would have to be large or some other idea that i haven't thought about. I don't want this ship being an anti sup cap fleet I want this to be the Supers and Titans biggest fear on the field. Could also make a new bomb that shuts down capital propulsion for x/seconds to make them immobile. Just thought but with the way the game is going we need anti capital weapons to make Super Blobs pay. |

Mary Annabelle
State War Academy Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 18:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
Anti-Cap destroyer... That could be interesting to add to the mix.
If you make the increased blast sig a role bonus, maybe that would isolate the damage more towards the biggie supersized ships you mentioned. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 18:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
I am very surprised that Mzxf has not commented on my idea as of yet. |

Velicitia
Open Designs
661
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 19:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
he's too busy pointing out where I'm wrong in the "T2 better gunboat dessie" thread that's somewhere on the first page  |

shadowace00007
Beyond The Gates The Methodical Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 01:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Bombs really dont hurt caps that much. so people would still blob. its not a bad idea but still, the idea of these keeping caps from blobing is not going to happen.
Born Amarrian Raised Minmatar. |

Nomistrav
Plague Riders
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 05:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Since I've noticed this thread and decided to browse through it for similarities; I've decided to make a mention of my current thoughts.
I don't want it to seem like I'm completely disregarding the plausibility, purpose, or proposed necessity of a Heavy Bomber, not at all; more so I would like to account for a T2 Gun-boat rather than adding to the Bomber conundrum.
HOWEVER
It would not be opposed to having T2 Destroyers specialized by their racial aptitudes. A Heavy Bomber seems a Caldari sort of thing, and I would imagine that by fielding bonuses based with this in mind it could still serve the same purpose under the Escort Destroyer proposition. In fact, you could even combine the two and have a dedicated gunboat that still has the capabilities of a Bomber.
For example; if you field it with superior turret damage bonuses to it's T1 counter-part, The Destroyer, but only field it with four guns, it leaves a degree of versatility to fill the other role. Give them five or six hi-slots so they can field their guns and whatever you have proposed as a method of helping to destroy capitals.
This shouldn't be taken into consideration without the expense of something in return, this ship should -not- be an end all to everything on the field be they small or large. It should sacrifice speed, or even tank, to perform dual duties. Consider it like an equal exchange, and collaborate/combine ideas as to lessen the work load of projected features. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 14:39:00 -
[19] - Quote
I don't want to make it a hybrid or dual role plat form. I want to make this have a specific role. As to the bombs not doing much damage to Capitals I would have to agree with you on that what about introducing a new type of bomb an Anti Capital Bomb it would take up the entire Bomb cargo space so 1 mounted per launcher. It would have the same operation as the DD of only being able to fire on capital ships. This would also make the SB more of a Capital weapon also as it could carry 1 also but not be as destructive as the heavy bomber would be to capitals. For this to work the Bombs would have to be 10 mi+ and do damage of 150k upwards. cargo Space would also have to be a factor I would think it should be large enough to carry 2 spare bombs and some room for Torps. These ships would need Carrier support or a can in space to reload from to make them effective in long deployments. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 16:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Made slight changes to the original Idea. |

Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
240
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 17:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
MIrple wrote:I don't want to make it a hybrid or dual role plat form. I want to make this have a specific role. As to the bombs not doing much damage to Capitals I would have to agree with you on that what about introducing a new type of bomb an Anti Capital Bomb it would take up the entire Bomb cargo space so 1 mounted per launcher. It would have the same operation as the DD of only being able to fire on capital ships. This would also make the SB more of a Capital weapon also as it could carry 1 also but not be as destructive as the heavy bomber would be to capitals. For this to work the Bombs would have to be 10 mi+ and do damage of 150k upwards. cargo Space would also have to be a factor I would think it should be large enough to carry 2 spare bombs and some room for Torps. These ships would need Carrier support or a can in space to reload from to make them effective in long deployments.
Considering that you don't need a lock to launch a bomb, wouldn't you be able to just decimate subcap fleets with these even easier than you can with regular bombers? One run with half a dozen of these, and you've popped the entire fleet. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 17:04:00 -
[22] - Quote
Read my edits please. It might need its own launcher for this to work but that wouldn't change the what I am aiming for. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 17:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
MIrple wrote:(Edited) 2/24/2012 Gallente Heavy Bomber
6 Hi Slots 4 Launcher Hard Points 2 Bomb Hard Points 3 Mids 4 Lows
Structure 782 Armor 950 Resists 50% EM 10% EXP 83% Kin 67% Therm Shield 677 Resists 0% EM 50% EXP 85% KIN 60% Therm
Gallente Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to torpedo explosion velocity and flight time per level 20% bonus to torpedo velocity per level
Heavy Bomber Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to bomb thermal damage per level 10% bonus to torpedo thermal damage per level
Role Bonus -99.65% reduction in Siege Missile Launcher powergrid needs Able to fit 2 bomb launchers
I have thought about this and I feel this is the best way To make it work. Skills required Destroyer lvl V and Bomb Launcher lvl 5. This will allow for the fitting of T2 Bomb launchers and these launchers will be able to fit the T2 anti capital bombs. These bombs have some basic guidance and are only able to launch vs capital ships much like the current DD. These Bombs do massive damage close to 200k at Heavy Bomber lvl 5. These ships are meant to in large swarms take out capitals in a single bombing run or soften up the supers for the capital fleet. It would take a fleet of 125 Heavy Bombers to take down a Super carrier. I think this would be a very interesting way to make supers die more frequently or at least make the alliance commit a sub cap fleet to protect the capital fleet.
|

Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 19:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
+1 Great Idea |

L'Acuto
Old Timers Guild Inc. Fusion Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 00:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
Instead of 2 bomb launchers how about a reduction to or elimination of the reactivation delay? |

James Amril-Kesh
Interstellar Faction 21
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 00:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
L'Acuto wrote:Instead of 2 bomb launchers how about a reduction to or elimination of the reactivation delay? Slight reduction, maybe. Elimination? No, no, no... Support showing T2 and faction frequency crystal damage in the info window! |

Tinu Moorhsum
Royal Scientific Research Enterprise
48
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 02:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
MIrple wrote: ...snip...
I have thought about this and I feel this is the best way To make it work. Skills required Destroyer lvl V and Bomb Launcher lvl 5. This will allow for the fitting of T2 Bomb launchers and these launchers will be able to fit the T2 anti capital bombs. These bombs have some basic guidance and are only able to launch vs capital ships much like the current DD. These Bombs do massive damage close to 200k at Heavy Bomber lvl 5. These ships are meant to in large swarms take out capitals in a single bombing run or soften up the supers for the capital fleet. It would take a fleet of 125 Heavy Bombers to take down a Super carrier. I think this would be a very interesting way to make supers die more frequently or at least make the alliance commit a sub cap fleet to protect the capital fleet.
I think it all gets too complicated when we start getting into the realm of "this weapon can shoot ship type A B and C but not type D and that weapon can shoot ship type X Y Z and type A can shoot type Z ships if type D ships are not on grid or moving faster than 1000mps which they can only do if type E ships have just cyno'd in and the cyno is still up.... unless it's Friday or 4:30am in central US TZ "
Too complicated and it opens a can of worms.
If you want a good "anti capital" weapon then just fix the dread. give it some kind of mini-DD or something so we have a flying hope in hell of killing more super-caps with fleets that can be afforded without 24 hour a day bot ratting/mining.
T-
p.s. That said.... if it were just a bigger bomber, one that could launch 2 bombs at a time but wasn't able to fit a covert-ops cloak, then I think it would have a nice niche for small corps/alliances who don't have enough "extra" pilots to fill up a useful stealth bomber fleet for support of their main fleet.
T- |

Antal Marius
Black Aces Mining Div AAA Citizens
12
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 10:14:00 -
[28] - Quote
Just a thought, and I'll probably be flamed to hell and back for it, but restrict it to ONLY the two bomb launchers/new launcher? |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
14
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 15:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tinu Moorhsum wrote: ...snip...
If you want a good "anti capital" weapon then just fix the dread. give it some kind of mini-DD or something so we have a flying hope in hell of killing more super-caps with fleets that can be afforded without 24 hour a day bot ratting/mining.
T-
That is the problem if you field enough Dreads to take down a Super the Super fleet will kill every last dread and at the end of the day you are the ones with the lost isk. I am proposing a Cheaper Ship that can perform this function and still maintain balance. Why do you say that a weapon shouldn't be able to attack A when it can XYZ. We already have this in game with the DD. If you want make it so they heavy bomber can field a new type of Bomb Launcher then so its simpler an Anti Cap Bomb Launcher but still make it so it can only be used at Bomb lvl 5. I don't want this ship to be exploited with normal bomb launchers that can take out sub cap fleets i want this to have a specific role and to make the game more dynamic. |

zhang elliott
Trit My Pants
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
I for one would not mind seeing a new use for the dessie platform. I feel that the class of ship is under-rated terribly and any one that proposes a change to make them more viable is treated like an ass clown or something similar. Destroyers are meant to destroy other ships alone or in Destroyer Squadrons. Destroyers in RL have been modified to fit a whole host of situations, why should that be any different in EVE. But bomber not real sure on that.....torps hell yeah. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:17:00 -
[31] - Quote
I am seeing a lot of confusion with the bomb launchers on this ship. Would a new Module make people less fearful of exploites of this ship. The Module would be called an Anti Capital Launcher. This would require a new skill of Anti Calital Launcher and would require Bomb launcher V for it. This would be able to hold a new Charge call a RPC or rocket propelled charge. This would have tracking capabilities but would not be able to lock onto anything sub capital. The charge would be invented from bomb BPC's so it is a T2 weapon. Basically Someone tinkered with a standard bomb made the explosive a shape charge to focus all the damage of the weapon into a small pinpoint area. I would think a max range on this bomb would be 20km and they travel at a speed of 750m/s so if there are frigates or destroyers in fleet they would be able to target and destroy these before they hit the capital ship. I think that each of these should do around 200~250k each. That would put 100 of these bombers at 50 million Damage per run. Please read this and let me know if this is a better approach then just having bomb launchers. Also please put any Ideas or changes you would make to this ship so we can refine and solidify this more. Thanks |

Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:13:00 -
[32] - Quote
I like the anti cap bomber idea, put some fear into those titan pilots, however dessys are really really squishy. it jsut makes me wonder about a 20 km range weapon with supers having ~ 7km/7.5 sec smartbombs with the supercap volume diameter thats a pretty huge amount of space that it hits. it would be an interisting fight though
Oh and i still want my AEGIS Destroyers. scan for cloakys in the old school probe formats. active ping scans, (hmm... active ping shows cloaky types+name on scanner shows a AU range. also makes you warpable like a cyno, the scanner not the cloaky)
something anything would be fun. |

SPYDER245
Black Wormholes of Apocrypha TOGETHER WE STAND
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
First, let's make caps/supercaps almost unable to lock and destroy subcap targets. Then, make a cheap subcap ship that can destroy a capital/supercapital.
Why not remove the caps/supercaps altogether ?
If you want a good weapon against a supertank, spend a similar amount of isk and bring your own supercannon. Dont ask for a wooden arrow with a 500 megatones nuke head. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
Your logic about bring the same ship to kill the same ship is already been counted as dumb. Just because I propose a ship that would make people have to have support ships for there Capital fleets. I am sorry that your I win button is no longer valid. |

SPYDER245
Black Wormholes of Apocrypha TOGETHER WE STAND
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Your logic about bring the same ship to kill the same ship is already been counted as dumb. Just because I propose a ship that would make people have to have support ships for there Capital fleets. I am sorry that your I win button is no longer valid.
Hmmmm... when ? I meant same amount of isk. If you want to take down a fleet, bring your own fleet - this was EVE's logic since the invention of T2s. Having a superbomb that can destroy entire fleets of supercaps and their escorts reduces any fight to something like whoever-fires-first-wins. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
MIrple wrote:I am seeing a lot of confusion with the bomb launchers on this ship. Would a new Module make people less fearful of exploites of this ship. The Module would be called an Anti Capital Launcher. This would require a new skill of Anti Calital Launcher and would require Bomb launcher V for it. This would be able to hold a new Charge call a RPC or rocket propelled charge. This would have tracking capabilities but would not be able to lock onto anything sub capital. The charge would be invented from bomb BPC's so it is a T2 weapon. Basically Someone tinkered with a standard bomb made the explosive a shape charge to focus all the damage of the weapon into a small pinpoint area. I would think a max range on this bomb would be 20km and they travel at a speed of 750m/s so if there are frigates or destroyers in fleet they would be able to target and destroy these before they hit the capital ship. I think that each of these should do around 200~250k each. That would put 100 of these bombers at 50 million Damage per run. Please read this and let me know if this is a better approach then just having bomb launchers. Also please put any Ideas or changes you would make to this ship so we can refine and solidify this more. Thanks
Please read this and explain how this ship would take down entire fleets of caps and subcaps |

SPYDER245
Black Wormholes of Apocrypha TOGETHER WE STAND
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:52:00 -
[37] - Quote
Please bring down your tone a notch - i am not trying to offend you so please return the favor; we are merely discussing an idea, please try and do it in a mature way.
Now, can anywhere in eve a single ship ( or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ) take down a ship 2 classes up their size ( obviously, assuming its pilot was experienced enough to know how to fit it properly ) ? I.e. 2-5 frigs taking down a BS or 2-5 cruisers a capital or 2-5 BS a supercap. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:12:00 -
[38] - Quote
Yes I have seen 3 to 4 frigs take out a BS, and also what you are saying is that Freighters shouldn't be kill able by anything other then BS's? What your saying is flawed in game dynamics. I also stated that the way the ship would work is you would need many of these to kill a Capital not the 3~4 you stated please read all of the forum post before responding with this is OP. I am not trying to attack you but I feel you read the top post and then immediately commented on this tread. |

SPYDER245
Black Wormholes of Apocrypha TOGETHER WE STAND
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Yes I have seen 3 to 4 frigs take out a BS, and also what you are saying is that Freighters shouldn't be kill able by anything other then BS's? What your saying is flawed in game dynamics. I also stated that the way the ship would work is you would need many of these to kill a Capital not the 3~4 you stated please read all of the forum post before responding with this is OP. I am not trying to attack you but I feel you read the top post and then immediately commented on this tread.
Freighters and industrial ships are non-pvp so they dont get into this discussion.
I admit i am guilty of not readin the entire thread, just the edited first post. Now i have read it all. I have the following comments :
You say one of these ships can fit 2 launchers and both can do 250k damage in one run, so 500k damage for a ship. One decently fitted archon has somewhere between 175k and 200k armor, and at least one tank type under 90%, so one of these bombers can take down one quarter of its armor in one run. 5 ships can destroy it without problems. Maybe with overheating, boosters and gang bonuses a capital could still be standing against 7-8 bombers which are a 50 times cheaper ship.
Also, you argued against using un-nerfed dreads against supers stating that you want "a cheaper ship". Please take in account that a dread is already almost 60-70 times cheaper than a titan.
|

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 16:50:00 -
[40] - Quote
Thanks for the positive feedback on this would making the Explosion Radius larger so that Dreads and Carriers wouldn't receive full damage. But full damage would still apply to Supers and Titans. I understand what you are saying about dreads I am just trying to propose an idea that would make it suicidal for alliances to field fleets of capital without sub cap support. |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 20:15:00 -
[41] - Quote
Bump even if this never makes it into the game would like more talk about this for my own help on making a post flesh out so my next idea well thought out before i post it. |

Reaver Glitterstim
Resurrected Darkness
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.19 20:44:00 -
[42] - Quote
I think the current stealth bomber already is a destroyer. Lets consider the facts:
destroyer base velocity is around 255m/s, and stealth bomber base velocity is around 265m/s
they both cause a lot of damage but are relatively fragile
Now just increase its sig radius along with increasing its HP to match, and bam! it's a destroyer.
Whether it's making a heavy bomber, declaring the current bomber a destroyer, or something entirely different, I am in favor of implementing more tech 2 destroyers. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |

MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
25
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:05:00 -
[43] - Quote
I just dont want to let it die. I am a paying sub so CCP do what I say cause thats the way it works right? Trolls welcome |

Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:44:00 -
[44] - Quote
very slick idea |

Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Mordus Angels
240
|
Posted - 2012.04.25 20:59:00 -
[45] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I think the current stealth bomber already is a destroyer. Eh? I missed seeing this when it was posted originally....
No, it's a frigate.
Each race has only one T1 and one T2 destroyer ATM.
I think adding more types of destroyers would increase small scale PvP, as they could become the big fish in that small pond. |

Morgan Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 10:20:00 -
[46] - Quote
Verry interesting idea and should be useful also but at the way it is presented it would be waay too overpowered.
Needs tweaking. But I'm giving a +1 still for this. New ships are always a cool thing. |

Mike Whiite
Progressive State State Section 9
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.26 12:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
maybe it's more a thing, for a T2 Battlecruiser, maybe a T2 version of the tier 3 ships
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |