EVE Search - For interested blaster ship pilots: patch changes vs. blaster ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

For interested blaster ship pilots: patch changes vs. blaster ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Pattern Clarc Invicta.	Posted - 2008.07.31 01:19:00 - [151] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Pattern Clarc I haven't read the whole thread, but if your talking about max dps, the typhoon more than out ganks a megathron, and thats before armor/shield **** damage type. They were comparing Neutron IIs vs. Megapulse IIs. For me, it's not so much the damage type, it's the damage at 60-80km optimal on an apoc.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:03:00 - [152] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Bellum Eternus Tracking for Neutron IIs using CN Antimatter (no tracking penalty): 0.05412 Tracking for 800 IIs with Rep. Fleet EMP (no tracking penalty): 0.0567 No. Perfect skills: Tracking for Neutron IIs using Antimatter: 0.05412 Tracking for 800 IIs with EMP: 0.054 Sorry, I made a mistake, had a 5% tracking implant in when I tested the Tempest. I edited my original post. That being said, a 0.22% (not 22%, a little over 1/5th of 1 percent) is worth exactly shit. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:06:00 - [153] Originally by: WillageGirl Originally by: Twirlip Apologies if this has already been covered/suggested, but how about (on selected ships only) decreasing the signature radius hit when an mwd is on? That makes the blasterboat harder to hit as it powers in, and if done with the right numbers can compensate for the increased time to target range. It just happens to be that both, Mega and Hyperion are taking full damage from other BS sized weapon systems (based on signature radius) even without MWD. For this reason decreasing signature radius hit would have no effect at all (unless made negative which is a bad idea even before it was invented). sig radius also makes it easier to track a target. doubling a sig radius and halfing tracking would cancel each other out, at least tests in tracking guid show this to be true. So decreasing sig radius penelty of mwds would make it harder for other turrets to track you... would this be a useful bonus or would it just mean blasters can't track other blaster ships now?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:11:00 - [154] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 31/07/2008 01:11:31 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 31/07/2008 01:10:47 First on page 6 \o/ Originally by: Bellum Eternus So let's review: You're wrong about the blasters having more DPS. You're wrong about the blasters having more range (optimal specifically). And you're wrong about the blasters having more tracking. Just a question from a bystander, did you factor in average armor resistance on targets when looking at dps? I'm asking since on my armor tankers, em tends to be highest resist. Half my shield tankers have em as highest resist too, but thats because I'm minmatar. Generally, if you're shooting at me, you're way better off with kin/therm than em/therm. For me personally, EM is generally my lowest resist on most setups since it was nerfed from 60% to 50%. My Dominix tank has EM as lowest, my Astarte, Isthar, Deimos, Sac, Zealot, etc. all have lower EM than anything. My Megathron and Hype setups vary, but either EM is the lowest or Exp is the lowest, but Kin/Therm usually end up the highest. Kinetic is typically the lowest resist on most shield tanks (most), but at this point I'm seeing most omni-tanks with resists within 3-5% of each other across the board. No longer is EM damage the bastard step child. Additionally, ships like the Tempest or Raven that can lob explosive weighted damage are even more efficient against ships like the Hype or Mega who traditionally (at least with my setups) have very very low explosive resists. Who cares if Tempests are 10% off the peak DPS of a Mega when they're hitting on resists that are 15% lower than Kin/Therm? You end up doing more effective damage. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.07.31 02:35:00 - [155] Originally by: Dendo Ordoss mind showing that pest setup? The gist of one of my Tempest setups goes something like this: Highs: 6x 800 IIs with RF EMP for dps, Barrage for range, 2x Siege IIs with CN ammo Mids: 100mn T2 MWD, web, 20km point, Heavy Cap Booster II, sensor booster/ECCM etc. Lows: LAR T2, 1600 RT plate, 2x Amarr Navy EANM (thank you Tuxford for that T2 EANM CPU increase you jerk), IFFA damage control, Gyro II Rigs: 1x grid rig, 2x Trimarks Drones: 3x Ogre IIs. HG Slave clone with 5% all turret tracking and 5% all turret damage implants (others are hybrid specific and don't apply). 117,188 EHP, 26,441 actual armor. Resists are 81.3% EM (lol), 69.6% Therm, 65% Kin, 58% Exp. Active tank is about 226 DPS, does around 922 DPS inc. drones, range on guns is 3km opt., 20km falloff with EMP and 6km/30km (lol) with Barrage. Range on torps is 20km with max skills. Mobility is superior to my Mega/Hype setups and I can quite easily dictate range as I choose, particularly because I can afford to run my MWD much more. Cap use from the Tempest, MWD and rep off: -4.3 cap/sec. Cap use from my Ion II Hyperion with rep and MWD off: -24.2. MWDs add another -59.4 cap/sec, so when you look at it that way, the Hype has to deal with a 40% higher cap requirement while running both MWD and everything else vs. the Tempest. That's a huge huge difference. Blaster ships can not afford to run guns and rep and MWD for the entire fight. Typically, if you have to reactivate your MWD in the middle of a fight, you've just killed yourself cap-wise. Quick note to avoid possible whiners: yeah, my setup is using slaves and fancy implants. So does my Hype and Mega setups. It's all relative performance. I could take out the Slaves and other fancy stuff and redesign my setup to work without it, but I was asked for my setup, what I know works extremely well. And not just against 'regular' BS. I'm going up against similarly equipped opponents with similar implants and ISK invested. Although, I know better than to fight Crystal equipped torp Raven pilots or Maelstroms similarly equipped. If you guys want to talk about 'unfair' and 'broken' and 'cheating' then just try a 1v1 with those guys. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
WillageGirl Advanced Tactics and Maneuvers	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:53:00 - [156] Originally by: Typhado3 Originally by: WillageGirl Originally by: Twirlip Apologies if this has already been covered/suggested, but how about (on selected ships only) decreasing the signature radius hit when an mwd is on? That makes the blasterboat harder to hit as it powers in, and if done with the right numbers can compensate for the increased time to target range. It just happens to be that both, Mega and Hyperion are taking full damage from other BS sized weapon systems (based on signature radius) even without MWD. For this reason decreasing signature radius hit would have no effect at all (unless made negative which is a bad idea even before it was invented). sig radius also makes it easier to track a target. doubling a sig radius and halfing tracking would cancel each other out, at least tests in tracking guid show this to be true. So decreasing sig radius penelty of mwds would make it harder for other turrets to track you... would this be a useful bonus or would it just mean blasters can't track other blaster ships now? Did you actually stop thinking about the issue or just bursted an idea out there? Sure signature radius has effect on hitting probability when turret is tracking. When heavy baster ship is closing into target there however isnt much traking involved since there is minimal transversal velocity. Meaning the closing ship get hit with close to 100% probability (thats what your tracking guide says) and this in turn leads us to the same statement already made, decreasing signature radius hit would have no effect at all. Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004
Sicks Doom Generation Doom Armada	Posted - 2008.07.31 06:53:00 - [157] CCP is just trying to do too much at once. If they nerfed speed a little bit at a time they'd be able to find where it becomes balanced. Right now they're just overshooting their mark. All they need to do is fix polycarbs so that they're equivalent to other rigs, and turn nanos into the combination module they were talking about. If they do that first, the speed of nano ships will decrease, while the speed of regular fit ships will not change at all. All this messing with webs and scrams is silly, altho the 2point scram at this point of the game is pretty useless. I was also thinking that maybe they could make mwds more like getting bumped, a quick burst of speed and then you coast in whatever direction you're moving. Then ABs would be the primary make-my-ship-fly-faster module, whereas MWDs would be the emergency-speed-boost. Blasters didn't need to be touched in this patch. Gallente has enough going against them already. - - - - - - - - - -
Mika Meroko Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:03:00 - [158] maybe reduce the mass of typically blaster boats?... but then again, this might led us back to the original problem... so... I think that blasters themselves need to be tweaked.... and short range weapons in general... Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Tetsuo Hourai	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:04:00 - [159] Edited by: Tetsuo Hourai on 31/07/2008 07:05:44 agreed, better (or worse) stacking penalty for propulsion modules, polyrig, and change nothing else. blaster boats will be pretty useless if it goes through as is.
Euriti Gallente SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:06:00 - [160] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin What were your findings when you brought a tackler? What part of "blasters suck for gangs, only works solo" don't you get? Instead of bringing a tackler bring 2x Geddons and watch the rainbow.

Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:36:00 - [161] Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 31/07/2008 07:44:23 Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 31/07/2008 07:38:24 Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Bellum Eternus So let's review: You're wrong about the blasters having more DPS. You're wrong about the blasters having more range (optimal specifically). And you're wrong about the blasters having more tracking. Just a question from a bystander, did you factor in average armor resistance on targets when looking at dps? I'm asking since on my armor tankers, em tends to be highest resist. EM is one of the best damage types to do these days, actually. It's the best damage type against omni-tanked t1 shields, triple-hardened t1 armor and any t2 ship that plugs its resist hole with a specific hardener except for Minmatar (Amarr t2 with thermal hardener? EM; Gallente t2 with explosive hardener? EM; etc.) It's the worst damage type against omni-tanked t1 armor and minmatar t2. The times when lasers had a big drawback due to resists are over (luckily!). I think the main problem is that lasers were "fixed" so many times that all the fixes together are just a tad bit too much. They need to be toned down a little bit to compensate for their range. My favorite solution would be less tracking for them. As for fixing blasters: Increase tracking. They are meant to fight very close, they should have the best tracking of all guns. Currently, they track as good as ACs. (ACs are meant to fight close as well, but for ACs, choosing the correct range that is not optimal is the challenge.) Many ships, not just blaster boats, need more agility as is - especially blaster boats and Minmatar boats (I don't know who had the idea of making Amarr the second fastest race in half the ship classes, or Caldari the most agile one in almost all of them, but it's wrong ;-))
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:51:00 - [162] Edited by: The Djego on 31/07/2008 07:57:15 Originally by: Lilith Velkor As for fixing blasters: Increase tracking. They are meant to fight very close, they should have the best tracking of all guns. Currently, they track as good as ACs. (ACs are meant to fight close as well, but for ACs, choosing the correct range that is not optimal is the challenge.) Many ships, not just blaster boats, need more agility as is - especially blaster boats and Minmatar boats (I don't know who had the idea of making Amarr the second fastest race in half the ship classes, or Caldari the most agile one in almost all of them, but it's wrong ;-)) Its not only about Tracking it is also about Combat range especialy on Ships that useing Med Guns. With the less powerfull Web it is very hard to maintain Range. It is quite impossible against a AB fitted Ship or against a skilled Pilote that knows that avoiding the 5km around the Blastership IN Web Range is this chance to win. A few km can make a very big diffrence here. If the MWD is off or not don¦t even matter that mutch, even if you can use it is not a big bonus given the weaker Web amount, the slower accelation, you are webbed etc, it simply don¦t works out in favour of the Blaster ship. Moving within Web Range and the weaker Web, its not like pin down something, its like fat cows on ice, trying to catch each other but slipping away every try. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
PeHD0M	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:10:00 - [163] Currently there are 3 main problems: 1. nerfed speed, acceleration - we are getting more damage while closing target - fly less distance after switching off mwd - using more cap because of longer fly time 2. scramblers turn off mwd - nerfed speed + mwd cooldown + nerfed acceleration = 10km to target = crap dps 3. nerfed webs (main problem) - target is moving too fast, turrens can't track it = even more crap dps - target can easily dictate range and so we are: out of cap + half of hp + little dps = boom Solutions: 1. don't nerf webs 2. boost blaster optimal\tracking (give a role bonus) ~ +5km(L)
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:28:00 - [164] I think it would be helpful to know what Nozh/the rest of the team see as the intended role for Blasterboats. If the solo niche is to be no more, then where do they fit in? If it's just a case of Blasterboats being 'collateral damage' from the speed changes - "hey guys how should we fix this?" - then.... -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Alkeena Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:47:00 - [165] Adding range is not the answer imho, if only for its detrimental homogenizing factor; similar to what I discussed here nearly a year ago. Furthermore the one factor that made blasterships worth flying in the face of all their issues was their pure facestabbing ability; now torps and pulses have essentially the same ability with few if any of the drawbacks in actual practice. I can see how, blasterships aside, these changes may prove quite beneficial to both tactical piloting and inter-shipclass balance. Unfortunately they also render blasterships wholly obsolete. A solution that I would propose would be simply to not bother solving the issues presented with blasters here at all, but rather make blasters worth using for their original purpose--give me a 30-40% (+-) DPS advantage vs other gank platforms and suddenly all these new problems become an unfortunate, but fair, trade for the recoronation of the blaster platform as facestabbing king.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.07.31 10:13:00 - [166] Originally by: Alkeena A solution that I would propose would be simply to not bother solving the issues presented with blasters here at all, but rather make blasters worth using for their original purpose--give me a 30-40% (+-) DPS advantage vs other gank platforms and suddenly all these new problems become an unfortunate, but fair, trade for the recoronation of the blaster platform as facestabbing king. This I could go for, although the damage increase might need to be even larger - what it should be is dependent on how long the ship needs to close to effective range from range <x>, where also <x> is a design decision. I think that at least some tracking increase would also be needed so that targets can't just either move away OR start orbiting close-range to avoid almost all damage. -- Gradient forum
WillageGirl Advanced Tactics and Maneuvers	Posted - 2008.07.31 10:21:00 - [167] Edited by: WillageGirl on 31/07/2008 10:21:42 Originally by: Theron Gyrow Originally by: Alkeena A solution that I would propose would be simply to not bother solving the issues presented with blasters here at all, but rather make blasters worth using for their original purpose--give me a 30-40% (+-) DPS advantage vs other gank platforms and suddenly all these new problems become an unfortunate, but fair, trade for the recoronation of the blaster platform as facestabbing king. This I could go for, although the damage increase might need to be even larger - what it should be is dependent on how long the ship needs to close to effective range from range <x>, where also <x> is a design decision. I think that at least some tracking increase would also be needed so that targets can't just either move away OR start orbiting close-range to avoid almost all damage. Still saying boost blaster tracking on turret level and change MWD bonus (now obsolete) and tracking bonus to webifier str bonus on blaster platform stats. "I feel a strong disturbance in the force" (of blaster ships) Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.31 11:19:00 - [168] Originally by: Alkeena A solution that I would propose would be simply to not bother solving the issues presented with blasters here at all, but rather make blasters worth using for their original purpose--give me a 30-40% (+-) DPS advantage vs other gank platforms and suddenly all these new problems become an unfortunate, but fair, trade for the recoronation of the blaster platform as facestabbing king. That would be interesting ;) But yeah, it does appear torpedo/pulse ships get a bit too much DPS considering their range (which is now more relevant). Also, there's this weapon system with fail range (but good falloff or, read, reduced damage at range) and low DPS which needs a bit of looking at as well. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Dendo Ordoss Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.07.31 11:27:00 - [169] lol, its kinda funny to see that cause webs and nano ships gets a nerfed all of eve's ships needs to be rebalanced. this nerf is causing way more problems then its fixing
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.07.31 11:32:00 - [170] everything is fine, people are just overreacting cause on sisi they cant kill cruisers in their megatron that easy as on TQ

Dendo Ordoss Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.07.31 11:38:00 - [171] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic everything is fine, people are just overreacting cause on sisi they cant kill cruisers in their megatron that easy as on TQ if you claim everything is fine it just showes how little you actually know about pvp tbfh
The Djego Minmatar merovinger inc	Posted - 2008.07.31 11:42:00 - [172] Edited by: The Djego on 31/07/2008 11:43:02 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Alkeena A solution that I would propose would be simply to not bother solving the issues presented with blasters here at all, but rather make blasters worth using for their original purpose--give me a 30-40% (+-) DPS advantage vs other gank platforms and suddenly all these new problems become an unfortunate, but fair, trade for the recoronation of the blaster platform as facestabbing king. That would be interesting ;) But yeah, it does appear torpedo/pulse ships get a bit too much DPS considering their range (which is now more relevant). Also, there's this weapon system with fail range (but good falloff or, read, reduced damage at range) and low DPS which needs a bit of looking at as well. Ofc, more Damage would help, but the main problem is atm to get in Range and stay there/keep your Target there to do your Damage, what is needet to sloved first in my Opinion. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Zikka Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.31 12:52:00 - [173] Disclaimer: I don't fly blaster boats so this is based only on the bonus/what people have said/theorycraft. The nano-nerf is having a knock in effect on blaster boats. The cap penalty bonus is now also looking a lot less useful than it used to. Looking at what blaster ships do you are not trying to orbit or any fancy flying. You are looking to go fast in a straight line until you get to someone and then sit still next to them. So I suggest that the MWD Cap bonus on the thorax hulls be changed to give both a velocity increase on AB and MWD and an agility decrease. This means that they will be very good at going fast in a straight line but not at turning or maneouvering. Just an idea...
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:06:00 - [174] Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin What were your findings when you brought a tackler? Aaarrghh!!!! FFS! This mindset ***es me off. Let me tell you a little bit about my personal situation : I play in Australia. Peak gaming time for me is the few hours around Downtime, which is slow times on the server. The corp I sit in, like most corps I've been involved with, is predominantly Euro / American, with a huge bias towards Scandinavians. What this means is: I play during slow times, when huge gangs aren't a problem, but also critically, finding a friend to be a tackler is also a problem. Most of my two years spent in game has been solo - solo missions, exploration, travelling, ratting and on occasion, solo PvP when I can be bothered getting ganked by a 6 vs 1. And even though I am part of a corp, my inclination to give 100% of my efforts to the corp is simply not there. I prefer to be left alone and not bothered. I prefer not to have to hang around waiting for people to pull their finger out and refit their ship so we can go hunting. Soloing is preferrable for me. The mindset that everyone has to play the game 'as part of a small gang, in order to be effective'* really **es me off. I want at least a few options to have fun** solo, because my my timezone it ain't happening any other way. Blaster boats were one of the few options I had for effective, though risky, solo PvP. If this game isn't fun to play solo, because you can't be effective, that's broken. Removing options for solo play - including PvP - just feeds the blob as much as anything else does.
Yukisa	Posted - 2008.07.31 13:35:00 - [175] Blasters/ac = Ninja, super fast, so cool adrenaline pumping, super deadly but only point blank. Pulse/torps = Crossbowmen, slow, geeky and boring, great up to medium range. All is well. But with these changes, you have really SLOW AND FAT Ninjas that can't get into melee range! I think this illustrates the point well enough. The discussion is over. Time for some CCP acknowledgment and fixes.
Alkeena Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.07.31 14:14:00 - [176] Originally by: Vengal Seyhan Originally by: Danjira Ryuujin What were your findings when you brought a tackler? Aaarrghh!!!! FFS! This mindset ***es me off. Let me tell you a little bit about my personal situation : I play in Australia. Peak gaming time for me is the few hours around Downtime, which is slow times on the server. The corp I sit in, like most corps I've been involved with, is predominantly Euro / American, with a huge bias towards Scandinavians. What this means is: I play during slow times, when huge gangs aren't a problem, but also critically, finding a friend to be a tackler is also a problem. Most of my two years spent in game has been solo - solo missions, exploration, travelling, ratting and on occasion, solo PvP when I can be bothered getting ganked by a 6 vs 1. And even though I am part of a corp, my inclination to give 100% of my efforts to the corp is simply not there. I prefer to be left alone and not bothered. I prefer not to have to hang around waiting for people to pull their finger out and refit their ship so we can go hunting. Soloing is preferrable for me. The mindset that everyone has to play the game 'as part of a small gang, in order to be effective'* really **es me off. I want at least a few options to have fun** solo, because my my timezone it ain't happening any other way. Blaster boats were one of the few options I had for effective, though risky, solo PvP. If this game isn't fun to play solo, because you can't be effective, that's broken. Removing options for solo play - including PvP - just feeds the blob as much as anything else does. Also, if you have support, how is a pulse geddon or torp raven not superior? With the effective tracking changes you most certainly dont want to dump a Bthron right on top of the target for an extra heavy point/web--he wont hit anything anyway. Instead you'd be much better off with pulses or torps, which do effectively the same DPS, at 15-30km so that they can effectively do full damage and also respond better to new threats warping in.
Dzajic Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.31 14:31:00 - [177] Originally by: Dendo Ordoss lol, its kinda funny to see that cause webs and nano ships gets a nerfed all of eve's ships needs to be rebalanced. this nerf is causing way more problems then its fixing And 90% of people who hate nanos, want >5km HACs to be nefed, but have a working brain and know anything about game balance said that in Friday as soon as they read the devblog.
J Valkor Invicta.	Posted - 2008.07.31 15:37:00 - [178] Originally by: Sicks CCP is just trying to do too much at once. If they nerfed speed a little bit at a time they'd be able to find where it becomes balanced. Right now they're just overshooting their mark. All they need to do is fix polycarbs so that they're equivalent to other rigs, and turn nanos into the combination module they were talking about. If they do that first, the speed of nano ships will decrease, while the speed of regular fit ships will not change at all. All this messing with webs and scrams is silly, altho the 2point scram at this point of the game is pretty useless. I was also thinking that maybe they could make mwds more like getting bumped, a quick burst of speed and then you coast in whatever direction you're moving. Then ABs would be the primary make-my-ship-fly-faster module, whereas MWDs would be the emergency-speed-boost. Blasters didn't need to be touched in this patch. Gallente has enough going against them already. No. They want to fix the roots of problems, not put band aids. Start testing and put up real critique.
Ace101 Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.07.31 16:02:00 - [179] quick question for solo pilots in megas, but has anyone else thought about a 'get back to gate' scenario. i tend to employ this tactic alot in my solo megathron due to the increasing number of players in eve and the increasing size of 'small gangs'. During a 'get back to gate lol' manuver one would try to hammer it back to gate as quickly as possible. counting on the whether the hostiles have a huggin/rapier or are too stupid to not agro and jump through and fight on the other side this tactic has varied effect. now imagine this but with your MWD shut off after one cycle = death. so in my eyes solo BS pvp is pretty much fubar amirte? BRUTEFORCE VID
MenanceWhite Amarr Red Light Navy	Posted - 2008.07.31 16:17:00 - [180] Originally by: J Valkor No. They want to fix the roots of problems, not put band aids. Start testing and put up real critique. Did you mean they're performing chainsaw surgery where only a scalpel really was needed? --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 45 :: 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.