EVE Search - Make All Guns Clipless to Reduce Fleet Lag

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Make All Guns Clipless to Reduce Fleet Lag

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arturus Vex Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.02 06:21:00 - [1] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=reply&threadID=819308 Originally by: CCP Wrangler CCP said that this issue has been brought up in the past, but has been rejected due to performance reasons. Moving items around causes a heavy load on the servers and making guns easier to reload might encourage players to do it even more frequently. There are concerns that during large fleet battles, all ammunition will be changed at the call of a fleet commander, which would cause an enormous spike on the servers. However due to the popularity of this feature, CCP will confer with the server/database teams to see if this feature can be implemented and how it would affect performance. I'll be surprised that this hasn't been suggested, but wouldn't an easy lag solution be to make all guns 'clip-less'. Make it so that you have an 'ammo bay' on each ship that can take a certain m3 of (whatever type) rounds. Make all of the guns load directly from this ammo bay, such that the firing rate is continuous (as with an amarr ships currently). DPSes may need to be rebalanced based on the type of ammunition. 1.) We eliminate the a lot of the server load from reloading and tracking the current clip of 6-8 guns. We replace it with one 'ammo bay' object. Furthermore, this is the type of behavior that can be predicted (ROF * number of guns * time = rounds spent) allowing for further server side optimization in high load situations. You don't have to check as often to see if the ships guns still have something to fire/are firing, you check once on activation, deactivation, type change and at a time when we have calculated that you should be 'getting low'. Although you will still track 1 or 2 ammunition types this is hardly different from tracking the ammunition in a cargo hold. We will essentially reduce the algorithmic level of complexity exponentially, as we are no longer really worrying about moving around small ammunition objects every so often and tracking 8 different objects, we are now tracking 1 or two ammunition attributes within the ammunition bay object, 2.) We reduce the currently huge advantage that Amarr ships have in lagged fleet battles. No reloading = no reloading lag = insanely higher DPS (10 to literally infinite higher DPS, depending on amount of lag). (There is a reason 15 Revs died in M-0 the other day, Bob knows what they are doing and the rev is far and away the best dread). Amarr ships still have the advantage of not having to manage ammunition/ammunition bay, and will still be excellent choices for fleet battles, just not the only choice as they are now. 3.) We can have the desired effect of instantaneously switching ammunition types. This results in a number of interesting situations, where there may be a tactical advantage to switching ammunition types. You'll note two things here: First is that we are not dealing with clips anymore. We no longer have to move objects during battle at all, instead we decrement a counter. Changing ammunition is now a matter of changing a pointer object rather than moving 8 objects (a pointer change should be a comparatively free operation).
Arturus Vex Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.02 06:21:00 - [2] http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=reply&threadID=819308 Originally by: CCP Wrangler CCP said that this issue has been brought up in the past, but has been rejected due to performance reasons. Moving items around causes a heavy load on the servers and making guns easier to reload might encourage players to do it even more frequently. There are concerns that during large fleet battles, all ammunition will be changed at the call of a fleet commander, which would cause an enormous spike on the servers. However due to the popularity of this feature, CCP will confer with the server/database teams to see if this feature can be implemented and how it would affect performance. I'll be surprised that this hasn't been suggested, but wouldn't an easy lag solution be to make all guns 'clip-less'. Make it so that you have an 'ammo bay' on each ship that can take a certain m3 of (whatever type) rounds. Make all of the guns load directly from this ammo bay, such that the firing rate is continuous (as with an amarr ships currently). DPSes may need to be rebalanced based on the type of ammunition. 1.) We eliminate the a lot of the server load from reloading and tracking the current clip of 6-8 guns. We replace it with one 'ammo bay' object. Furthermore, this is the type of behavior that can be predicted (ROF * number of guns * time = rounds spent) allowing for further server side optimization in high load situations. You don't have to check as often to see if the ships guns still have something to fire/are firing, you check once on activation, deactivation, type change and at a time when we have calculated that you should be 'getting low'. Although you will still track 1 or 2 ammunition types this is hardly different from tracking the ammunition in a cargo hold. We will essentially reduce the algorithmic level of complexity exponentially, as we are no longer really worrying about moving around small ammunition objects every so often and tracking 8 different objects, we are now tracking 1 or two ammunition attributes within the ammunition bay object, 2.) We reduce the currently huge advantage that Amarr ships have in lagged fleet battles. No reloading = no reloading lag = insanely higher DPS (10 to literally infinite higher DPS, depending on amount of lag). (There is a reason 15 Revs died in M-0 the other day, Bob knows what they are doing and the rev is far and away the best dread). Amarr ships still have the advantage of not having to manage ammunition/ammunition bay, and will still be excellent choices for fleet battles, just not the only choice as they are now. 3.) We can have the desired effect of instantaneously switching ammunition types. This results in a number of interesting situations, where there may be a tactical advantage to switching ammunition types. You'll note two things here: First is that we are not dealing with clips anymore. We no longer have to move objects during battle at all, instead we decrement a counter. Changing ammunition is now a matter of changing a pointer object rather than moving 8 objects (a pointer change should be a comparatively free operation).
Problematic one The Doctorates	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:29:00 - [3] tbh, I think we should just all agree to use smartbombs. No amoo issues, no reloading, no drone lag, local numbers would plummet due to lack of pods being around, blobs would melt under their own weight, and the geddon and phoon would probably be the only two battleships worth flying!
Lia Gaeren Pole Dancing Vixens	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:29:00 - [4] I wasn't too keen on this when I first read the titel, but by the time I'd got through the text it does seems to make sense and be a workable solution. It also solves another issue I have where if you don't have enough ammo to fully reload the entire bank of guns, there is no way (other than manually splitting stacks) to split your remaining ammo between them to maintain your DPS. Only thing that concerns me is you mention rebalancing of DPS - Have to say it is rare that I run out of ammo, have to reload and keep firing. Generally I reload as I go, and select moments in the battle where the 10 second reload does not interfere with my shooting.
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.10.02 07:42:00 - [5] Quote: 1.) We eliminate the a lot of the server load from reloading and tracking the current clip of 6-8 guns. We replace it with one 'ammo bay' object. Furthermore, this is the type of behavior that can be predicted (ROF * number of guns * time = rounds spent) allowing for further server side optimization in high load situations. You don't have to check as often to see if the ships guns still have something to fire/are firing, you check once on activation, deactivation, type change and at a time when we have calculated that you should be 'getting low'. Although you will still track 1 or 2 ammunition types this is hardly different from tracking the ammunition in a cargo hold. We will essentially reduce the algorithmic level of complexity exponentially, as we are no longer really worrying about moving around small ammunition objects every so often and tracking 8 different objects, we are now tracking 1 or two ammunition attributes within the ammunition bay object, I've never written code for an online game so I'm not really sure how much of an effect this would truly have. You used the word "exponentially" how about more concrete answers? Fancy words don't mean much. Quote: 2.) We reduce the currently huge advantage that Amarr ships have in lagged fleet battles. No reloading = no reloading lag = insanely higher DPS (10 to literally infinite higher DPS, depending on amount of lag). (There is a reason 15 Revs died in M-0 the other day, Bob knows what they are doing and the rev is far and away the best dread). Amarr ships still have the advantage of not having to manage ammunition/ammunition bay, and will still be excellent choices for fleet battles, just not the only choice as they are now. A removal of an advantage for a specific weapon type as a counter to lag is something I simply cannot agree on without giving something to compensate. Quote: 3.) We can have the desired effect of instantaneously switching ammunition types. This results in a number of interesting situations, where there may be a tactical advantage to switching ammunition types. You'll note two things here: First is that we are not dealing with clips anymore. We no longer have to move objects during battle at all, instead we decrement a counter. Changing ammunition is now a matter of changing a pointer object rather than moving 8 objects (a pointer change should be a comparatively free operation). Also removes the consequences of not being properly prepared or making a poor decision. I think time spent improving performance as well as upgrading server architecture to better handle the load is a better alternative. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.02 08:08:00 - [6] Originally by: Kadoes Khan Quote: 1.) We eliminate the a lot of the server load from reloading and tracking the current clip of 6-8 guns. We replace it with one 'ammo bay' object. Furthermore, this is the type of behavior that can be predicted (ROF * number of guns * time = rounds spent) allowing for further server side optimization in high load situations. You don't have to check as often to see if the ships guns still have something to fire/are firing, you check once on activation, deactivation, type change and at a time when we have calculated that you should be 'getting low'. Although you will still track 1 or 2 ammunition types this is hardly different from tracking the ammunition in a cargo hold. We will essentially reduce the algorithmic level of complexity exponentially, as we are no longer really worrying about moving around small ammunition objects every so often and tracking 8 different objects, we are now tracking 1 or two ammunition attributes within the ammunition bay object, I've never written code for an online game so I'm not really sure how much of an effect this would truly have. You used the word "exponentially" how about more concrete answers? Fancy words don't mean much. "Exponentially" most certainly does have a concrete meaning. I would suggest you look it up instead of criticizing people for your own ignorance.
Arturus Vex Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.02 08:34:00 - [7] Originally by: Kadoes Khan I've never written code for an online game so I'm not really sure how much of an effect this would truly have. You used the word "exponentially" how about more concrete answers? Fancy words don't mean much. Exponentially is hardly a fancy word. if N is the number of guns: Well for each reload you have N ammunition objects being moved into N number of guns. And an object update to the cargo bay. You also have N counters being decremented by 1 for each gun for each shot, N objects being altered for each gun, for each volley. This is of cubic exponential complexity. (N squared * reload) + (N squared * volley). (max 64 operations reloads + 64 operations volleys) In the proposed system, there are three possibilities: 1.) 1 counter that decrements the ammunition in the bay once for each shot. (N * volley) second order complexity (max 8 operations * volleys) 2.) 1 counter that decrements the ammunition in the bay once for each volley. (volleys) linear complexity max operations 1 * volleys 3.) The predictive approach-- do two calculations. On gun activation we calculate how long the ship can fire its guns with its current ammunition. If we reach this point we deactivate the guns. On gun deactivation (manual or otherwise), we do an update to the database about how many rounds are left (using our previous equation gunsrofduration). Client display of ammunition is tracked by the individual client. If we are firing for a particularly long time, and there is a possibility of desynch, we do run our rofduration calc occasionally to make sure everyone is up to date. This is of a constant complexity (2). In particularly long firing sessions, this will be of a duration 2+ additionalchecks. In most cases, (firing a few volleys then reloading) it will be complexity 2. Quote:* A removal of an advantage for a specific weapon type as a counter to lag is something I simply cannot agree on without giving something to compensate. I agree completely, however amar currently outclass other races by so much in certain situations that it is foolish not to fly their ship type (better to bring a t1 amarr bs than a t2 of other races, much of the time), this is entirely because of their advantage of not having to reload all of the time (they would actually maintain their stated benefit of 'not using ammunition'. Quote: Also removes the consequences of not being properly prepared or making a poor decision. I think time spent improving performance as well as upgrading server architecture to better handle the load is a better alternative. That is true, my point was more in response to Wrangler's quote, that they do not want people reloading/changing ammo all of the time because of the lag issues involved. We can certainly maintain a penalty for switching from one ammunition type to the other, i was merely stating that the penalty would no longer be mandatory.
Mihailo Great Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.02 13:11:00 - [8] zomg I have never thought of this
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.10.02 15:24:00 - [9] Interesting idea. I don't think it'll reduce lag at all, since reloading is so much rarer an operation than firing, but it does have a few other benefits. Most notably, you don't lose DPS when you have 3 guns worth of ammo left for 8 guns, and you have to F1-F8 less often. You'd have to drop the ROF of ammo-using weapons a little bit to compensate for this, which the PvPers won't like, but the difference would be small. Also, your math seems flawed - where do you get the O(n^2) from? Each firing of n guns decrements n ammo counters and does n damage calculations, and each reload decrements the ammo stack in your hold n times and increments n ammo counters. Both of those operations are O(n), meaning that there's not room for more than constant improvement. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.02 16:34:00 - [10] No having the clip and force activation of guns makes each type of weapon unique they would have to redo every weapon system again if they were o go all clip-less as well as balance cargo space.
Drake Draconis	Posted - 2008.10.02 17:17:00 - [11] Originally by: Kadoes Khan Quote: 1.) We eliminate the a lot of the server load from reloading and tracking the current clip of 6-8 guns. We replace it with one 'ammo bay' object. Furthermore, this is the type of behavior that can be predicted (ROF * number of guns * time = rounds spent) allowing for further server side optimization in high load situations. You don't have to check as often to see if the ships guns still have something to fire/are firing, you check once on activation, deactivation, type change and at a time when we have calculated that you should be 'getting low'. Although you will still track 1 or 2 ammunition types this is hardly different from tracking the ammunition in a cargo hold. We will essentially reduce the algorithmic level of complexity exponentially, as we are no longer really worrying about moving around small ammunition objects every so often and tracking 8 different objects, we are now tracking 1 or two ammunition attributes within the ammunition bay object, I've never written code for an online game so I'm not really sure how much of an effect this would truly have. You used the word "exponentially" how about more concrete answers? Fancy words don't mean much. Quote: 2.) We reduce the currently huge advantage that Amarr ships have in lagged fleet battles. No reloading = no reloading lag = insanely higher DPS (10 to literally infinite higher DPS, depending on amount of lag). (There is a reason 15 Revs died in M-0 the other day, Bob knows what they are doing and the rev is far and away the best dread). Amarr ships still have the advantage of not having to manage ammunition/ammunition bay, and will still be excellent choices for fleet battles, just not the only choice as they are now. A removal of an advantage for a specific weapon type as a counter to lag is something I simply cannot agree on without giving something to compensate. Quote: 3.) We can have the desired effect of instantaneously switching ammunition types. This results in a number of interesting situations, where there may be a tactical advantage to switching ammunition types. You'll note two things here: First is that we are not dealing with clips anymore. We no longer have to move objects during battle at all, instead we decrement a counter. Changing ammunition is now a matter of changing a pointer object rather than moving 8 objects (a pointer change should be a comparatively free operation). Also removes the consequences of not being properly prepared or making a poor decision. I think time spent improving performance as well as upgrading server architecture to better handle the load is a better alternative. ROTFLMAO Epic Fail. Google Mathematics and the key word Exponents. As for the Idea.... don't think that would fix lag as so much... even if it did... it would be rather smallish in effect. Valid points however as far as the programing aspect goes. But I don't think it would effect much of a change. But I do like the idea of ammo bay as opposed to clips. Storing the ammo in a separate cargo "slot" much like a drone bay would prevent me from accidentally yanking my ammo out ^_^;
Tempest Inferno Davy Jones Locker Einherjar Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.02 23:48:00 - [12] I never really understood the intelligence behind the ammo "clip". These ships would have the local ammo storage by the gun in order to keep a steady stable feed of ammunition, however the ship would also have a system to keep ammunition moving between the ships ammunition magazine and the individual gun magazines. For those who claim the amarr will loose their "no reload" advantage think of this: you still are not paying for your ammunition. The only thing not mentioned is ammunition swapping. As long as the ships magazine can hold multiple types of charges and it still takes 10 seconds to change what type of round you are using i support this idea. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kalinda Veldrin	Posted - 2008.10.03 00:14:00 - [13] I approve of this idea, not just for potential reduction in lag but also because it could be used to add more to ship management, different sized ammo bays, rigs to increase the size, modules like expanded cargo holds to increase the size etc.
SickSeven	Posted - 2008.10.03 02:25:00 - [14] well when you put it like that... It has merit. I support this as long as the change can be made and not unbalance everything.
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.10.03 03:24:00 - [15] Less Lag + Less Guessing-if-my-guns-are-still-firing-or-if-they-ran-out-of-ammo-5-minutes-ago = I rykee. _
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.10.03 16:21:00 - [16] Originally by: Arturus Vex Exponentially is hardly a fancy word. if N is the number of guns: Well for each reload you have N ammunition objects being moved into N number of guns. And an object update to the cargo bay. You also have N counters being decremented by 1 for each gun for each shot, N objects being altered for each gun, for each volley. This is of cubic exponential complexity. (N squared * reload) + (N squared * volley). (max 64 operations reloads + 64 operations volleys) While I know what exponential mean, I don't get why you thing the increase in calculations from 1 to n guns should be exponential and not linear. A single guns operation s have no effect on the other guns. In EVE you don't fire a volley as a single command were all the guns are involved, you fire N single guns, so to me the increase in complexity seem linear. Your idea still reduce the number of operations (but will force the system to check if you have a number of ammunitions not divisible for the numbers of your guns) but ina linear fashion. Then there are hazy area: what will it do if you are using different ammunitions in different guns? And if you are using different guns/launchers? As written it seem geared only for a single kind of gun standardized for all the hardpoints of a ship.
Jerni	Posted - 2008.10.03 17:36:00 - [17]
Arturus Vex Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.10.05 21:59:00 - [18] Sorry, I've been away for the weekend... Originally by: Venkul Mul While I know what exponential mean, I don't get why you thingk the increase in calculations from 1 to n guns should be exponential and not linear. A single guns operations have no effect on the other guns. In EVE you don't fire a volley as a single command where all the guns are involved, you fire N single guns, so to me the increase in complexity seem linear. (n = guns, y = volleys, r = reloads A = ammunition types) Now: You fire NY times checking NY times for ammunition and then reload RN times checking RN times for ammunition in the cargo bay. After: You fire N singles guns Y times checking A times for how long the ammunition will last. This isn't really about firing guns, it is about moving/calculating ammunition objects. When you count in all of the extra calculations/queries/movements that we could completely axe, it does become exponential. Quote: Your idea still reduce the number of operations (but will force the system to check if you have a number of ammunitions not divisible for the numbers of your guns) but in a linear fashion. It will check once, however. From a programming point of view, given the amount that we have reduced the complexity already, we could make our single check able to handle that. Quote: Then there are hazy area: what will it do if you are using different ammunitions in different guns? And if you are using different guns/launchers? As written it seem geared only for a single kind of gun standardized for all the hardpoints of a ship. Not a hazy area at all. Different guns have different rates of fire, and we calculate based on type of ammunition. At most you have 8 calculations at the beginning of firing (one for each gun). This would be a worst case scenario. Given that most people do not load 8 different types of ammunition, we can guess that the improvement in performance will be much better.
Bunyip Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2008.10.06 02:37:00 - [19] I like this idea to an extent. We should, however, be able to form two groups of ammunition to use (sometimes people use both missiles and guns, sometimes they use different shells in different guns, etc). While this won't drastically reduce lag, it will reduce the number of calculations per second the client machine has to perform, meaning computers with poor cooling and with lower-end processors should handle combat somewhat smoother. Sounds like a win-win situation, honestly. -Bunyip "May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
Lia Gaeren Caldari Pole Dancing Vixens	Posted - 2008.10.06 07:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Bunyip I like this idea to an extent. We should, however, be able to form two groups of ammunition to use (sometimes people use both missiles and guns, sometimes they use different shells in different guns, etc). I'm not a missile user so not sure how large they are, but it seems nonsensical to have them the same size as bullets. Therefore you might need a gun ammo bay and a missile bay. However, within that bay you could have as many different types of loads as possible. Simply right click on each gun/launcher and it lets you select a load for that weapon from a list of what is stored in the appropriate ammo bay. Alternatively, bin the whole 'bay' idea, and get the weapons to load direct from cargo, with a minor tweak upwards in cargo size to compensate for storing ammo there rather than in the weapon. I'm not a programmer or mathematician, but wouldn't that also benefit lag hits when changing ammo, even as suggested on other threads, to change ammo in all guns at the same time - since the operation is a 'pointing' one rather than a 'moving things around' one?
Ver0nik Pax Amarria Corp	Posted - 2008.10.06 14:41:00 - [21] While I completely agree with the OP there is another issue. For CCP solving reload problem in fleet battles will be like shooting itself in the foot. What's happening if you fly a non-amarr ship? Well, when your clip is empty (eventualy) and since you almost never reload we have one less ship creating lag. Poor Tempest.. can you believe it can be even worse considering reload? I'm wondering what would happend if everybody would fly only amarr in fleet battles.. amarr nerf maybe? At least that's my choice, having to choose between my server and some whining. It's fair for non-amarr? Hell no, but what's fair in life (and EvE).
Orb Lati ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.07 00:31:00 - [22] While i agree with this idea in principle i wondering if there would be any issues with rapid firing weapon systems such as auto cannons. Another area which also needs to be looked out at either an alternative or additional changes is weapons systems need to group. A typical fleet fit tempest has 6 1400mm all firing the same ammo. There is no reason why we couldn't just have the UI group all the guns together fire once and have a multiplier applied to the damage dependent on how many guns you have grouped. "We worship Strength because it is through strength that all other values are made possible"
RiseofFilth	Posted - 2008.11.22 00:52:00 - [23] this sounds like it would reduced lag and streamline pvp much more, as well as make pvp more fluent, as realism in the game dictates it should
Ackuula	Posted - 2008.11.25 11:30:00 - [24] I like the idea.
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.11.25 15:05:00 - [25] ______________________________ Way to ruin the original concept of EVE!
Uedel Lyonesse. KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.25 19:26:00 - [26] i like this idea also, bcause we have such a high technology in eve and cant build ships that dont have a steady run of ammo system? Every halfbrained Engineer would look for a steady going fire in a Warship. I even would go further and make it possible to give the weapons a Ammo mixture designed by players (I.E. EMP; EMP; Fusion; EMP.... ) so u can use 2 Ammotypes without reloading.............
Crossbowman	Posted - 2008.12.08 08:34:00 - [27] The current weapons with the different clip size will need some rebalace after this, but yes its a good idea. I support this.
Tusko Hopkins	Posted - 2008.12.08 10:58:00 - [28] With weapon grouping in, the math behind this request has changed a lot and makes the changes proposed unnecessary. Reloading is still exponential, but 1^n = 1. The clippy vs clippiness of the different weapon systems is something that brings color into the game. I do not like issues which try to make everything the same, e.g., in this case, removing the need to reload for non-laser weapons. Furthermore, I definitely do not support any kind of Amarr nerf (by nerfing them or by boosting all the others) at this moment. They are the race with the least options about how to use their ships. There are only a few situations where Amarrian ships are the best choice. Now you wanna remove this small advantage they sometimes have? And before you ask: I fly the ships of every race except for the Amarr. CSM representative CSM candidate for 2nd cycle Campaign website http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb
Rorin Cutter Caldari Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.08 11:35:00 - [29] Although a interesting idea, why would doing this help "fix" anything? There is nothing broken about the system we use now. If you add "ammo bays" then the ship size has to change. The space has to come from somewhere. This would mean a larger ship or less cargo space. And that means being able to carry fewer ships in a transport / industrial / freighter or, changing there size. Or the cargobay size of the ships have to be changed and we can carry less loot Also why canÆt we pilots do everything the op is talking about now? äStacking ammoô in the cargo bays is normal, and moveing around small ammo objects is something best done before the battle not during. I also donÆt see this ähugeö Amarrian ship advantage of crystals, because they have to change ammo too just like everyone else does. This means you simply have to bring enough ammo (stacked) to shoot with. The Amarrian ships take ten seconds to change ammo just like everyone else. Also I am not quite sure if the OP means he likes CCP Wranglers post or not, but personally I intensely dislike the idea of any FC being able to change my ammo at his whim. So, in my personal opinion: we need to stop fixing things that are not broken, this will in the end fix a lot of the lag. There will be more CCP programmers to work on the issues are really broken now. And of course I mean the issues that they fixed before, and then nerfed, and then fixed again........ -Rorin
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.12.08 14:14:00 - [30] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 08/12/2008 14:14:05 Originally by: Rorin Cutter The Amarrian ships take ten seconds to change ammo just like everyone else. Correction; they're pretty much instant. I'd still argue that you pay for that advantage & lack of 'normal' ammo with cap usage and single damage type... ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.