Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:59:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Elhina Novae
What about simply trying to fix those, and make "ludicrous" speeds stacking "nerfed" instead of doing a complete makeover on all ships mass/agility/speed?
Why not adjust everything that has to do with speed/agility/mass while youre at it? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Red Thunder
Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:01:00 -
[92]
why attempt to fix something that isnt broken....
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:03:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Red Thunder why attempt to fix something that isnt broken....
Yeah but its like saying ishtar is good enough even without it being able to use both its bonuses to its full extent. Its like saying why give meaning to the TP bonus on rapiers because rapier is good even with a wasted bonus. Fixes and adjustments are GOOD. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Cybele Lanier
Amarr The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:19:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari QUESTION: What will be the proposed changes to make the MWD not a "mandatory" module alongside the stasis webifier? Most ship setups often suffer from having to fit a MWD, and often make more sense without the MWD.
I'd be interested to hear this too.
After the nerf comes round, it's going to be interesting to see how many people actually do up and leave. --------------- ""Minimum collateral damage" and "Entire star system" do not belong in the same sentence." |
thrillhelm
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:22:00 -
[95]
well i just want to reply to the topic instead of everyone that wants to critizize how they are doing this lets be logical do ya really think that by slowing ships down it will hurt the game . I think not. what ccp is doing is making the game more as it was intended a tactical game. there will be more engagments better engagments and more tactical fights rather than a few fast ships picking there fights getting back to gates when they dont wanna fight. and just plain old boring. what happened to nice gangs of all ship types jamming damping webbing.and all having a tactical role. the point being whats wrong with tactical gangs because those of us asking to keep the ships fast have gotten away from that. so let me just throw out there 3 things that i miss some good some bad. number one is putting together a gang using each ships highlights. and not its ability to go fast. alot of great ships set simply because they cant go fast. makes no sense. number 2 i miss flying around and going oh crap when i hit a bubble. thats how it should be thats what there 4 if we can motor out in 2 secs guys whats the fun when ya hit a bubble and its ok thats not the intended effect and i dont like that. they are in place to make it difficult to travel. and number 3 length of engagments really stink with the nano gangs no tank. so its can we get one no lets warp away and keep waiting for easier targets we go 12 k pretty hard to force the issue there aye. and battles will be much more intense and longer funner and more frequent with alot better tactics and such. also all ships are getting it so if ya had a fast ship you will still have a fast ship. so in closing what the nay sayers to nerfing are really saying is hey its not fair my ship cant outrun bubbles missles drones ceptors guns and can pick engagments come on guys do ya really think you should go faster than drones and missles and that the only ships in game that should should be able to battle u should be limited to 4 or 5 and thats it. maybe they should give us forcefields we could turn on whenever we dont feel like fighting that would be great. final thought if u are good at pvp you will be just as good after they fix it. i like both methods of fighting i have alot of fun nano and not but lets face it it needs fixed guys let ccp do there work and get it done. theres a reason this game has lasted so long and its not because of nano ships its because of staying realsitic ships outrunning things 1 1000000 of there mass is not very realalistic just wanted to shed my opinion on the subject thanks thrill
|
Aydjile
Amarr The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:26:00 -
[96]
q - how about changing effect of the web?
instead of reducing speed, you could reduce agility of the ship. and increase range of the web of course. Reality exist only in our imagination. |
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:40:00 -
[97]
Originally by: thrillhelm incredibly painful wall of text
You might have excellent commentary or suggestions contained in that, but we will never know unless you edit it.
This is now the second recent wall of text post. People, use paragraphs and line breaks between them, please, kthnxbye.
|
Rajere
Vicious Inc
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 16:49:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Rajere on 07/10/2008 16:50:52 Why did it take so long to balance nanos? This isn't the first time they've had to be brought back in line.
After the nerf to Istabs/Nanofibers/OD to fix Nano-domi's nano-phoons back in the day, didn't it become obvious that you shouldn't allow -mass and +speed to exponentially impact mwding speed without stacking penalties?
Who allowed the Polycarbon rig to be added at all, much less implementing it in it's completely overpowered state of being superior to its T2 module equivalent? Was the developer who thought that was a good idea fired?
What checks will you put in place to prevent this from happening again, the next time someone gets a "good idea" to re-add the things you already know will break the game?
Unlike the vast majority of the players, some of us recognize the absolute necessity for these changes and realize that the current state of nanoing breaks not only the games physics but also breaks every single weapon and module mechanic. We also recognize that these changes are also intended to "undo" many previous bandaid attempts to bring speed in line, which fail to counter current speeds yet further breaks those combat systems against ships not able to reach those speeds. We applaud you for recognizing that you must bring the game back to some semblance of balance first, so that you may observe each system in their normal state and fix what is still broken. Some of us also realize how these changes will correct many outstanding balance issues, in addition to correcting nanoships.
However with that being said, there are outstanding concerns, particularly with the initial mass changes that were released, that impact in relationship to the agility boost to caldari ships, as well as for certain minmatar ships. Will you provide a full breakdown of the new mass/speed/agilities for each races lineup of ships? How to Fail at Eve
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 17:16:00 -
[99]
Question 1: Say you were to hypothetically listen to the people worried about the vaga, and left it relatively fast, but nerfed all other nano ships, what would be its counter with your new crappy web stats? (that one is more for the ******s asking the vaga NOT get changed if the rest are)
Question 2: Why aren't you just looking at implants and rigs first? Seems the most logical step, for normal people, assuming your realize the huge jump in speeds you get from adding those
Question 3: What impact do you think this will have on small gang roaming (be realistic, put the script down, and answer honestly, not that pre canned "It will be fine" crap)
Question 4: Your new stackless I/O has made blobbing even easier, by actually allowing them to play when blobbed up. Have you thought of that in conjunction with question 3?
Question 5:
How much will it cost me for you to just leave it alone?
|
Faraelle Brightman
Gallente Placid Reborn
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 17:27:00 -
[100]
Q:
As a result of testing that's happened so far, what are the Dev's current opinions on the changes outlined in the original blog and their results? Especialy: - The viability of Afterburners - Web effectiveness reduction - Warp Scrams shutting down MWD (do not like personaly, but maybe if it were a % chance like ECM...) - Effectiveness of blaster boats - Effectiveness of gurilla warfare vs blobs.
Q:
In a coupple ship discussion threads people have tossed out the idea of giving some t2 ships resistances to webs as an ability, or having web effectiveness based on ship size, or different sized webs. Have you considred these ideas (at least on paper) and if you already think they won't work, explain why?
|
|
Euriti
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 17:47:00 -
[101]
1) What are you planning to do about small gang warfare? Currently it's very hard to do small gangs without the usage of speed ships to avoid certain things like jump bridges and gatecamps?
2) What are you planning to do with the minmatar recons, the stabber family and other ships that currently only justify their cost if they are speedfit?
3) What are you planning on doing when it comes to Interceptors? Having light missile and drones tear interceptors apart in seconds will break them as they will have a harder time than currently tackling targets?
4) What are you planning to do when it comes to blasterships? Broken webs and much slower speeds with make blasterships even worse as holding down a target and getting in range will be impossible.
|
Synapse Archae
Amarr Demonic Retribution G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 18:07:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Synapse Archae on 07/10/2008 18:09:39 I'd like to know what CCP plans to replace nanos with for small gang warfare. Assualt ships are broken, black ops are broken, recons are fragile and tough to fit, RR bs are slow, bombers are slow and inneffective, ceptors are fast but very ineffective.
There are no compelling alternatives. Breaking the one thing that fits this role before replacing it would be irresponsible.
Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
John Duster
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 18:15:00 -
[103]
Edited by: John Duster on 07/10/2008 18:28:11 Edited by: John Duster on 07/10/2008 18:24:14 Edited by: John Duster on 07/10/2008 18:16:17
Originally by: Tak Sder One big reasons Nanos are so invulnerable is a previous patch. When you web someone their agility decreases, their inertia increases, and they don't slow down very fast. This allows a nano you web to fly right out of web range. How about undoing that, and maybe even giving webs a mild buff to increase range or rate of speed slowdown. Then they can slow down ships that are going too fast to fight. Voila, problem solved, and much less baroque than some of the solutions being proposed.
And of course, there was a very heavy handed missile nerf which brought in explosion speed, and oh by the way (for that and other reasons) rendered missile boats almost useless in PvP.
So now because of two previous nerfs, you have to pile on yet another ill considered, far reaching nerf? One that is very complicated, and has a lots of side effects. Like most nerfs, it will have lots of lots of side effects, will render billions of invested ISK worthless, render months of training time wasted, and be a medicine worse than the disease it is meant to cure.
How about making VERY SMALL, incremental changes here, and focusing on undoing parts of previous changes instead of adding on new ones?
QFFT /Signed /please
IIRC CCP stated that the big reason for the nerf is the only counter to nano currently is to bring more nano. I believe if anyone can can effectively carry an anti-nano module then balance will happen all on its own.
Has the thought of webs stopping people right away, or very rapidly, been considered? If it was considered and rejected in favor of an overall speed nerf why? Why is a nerf to overall ship speed needed when its combination of modules and rigs and plants that cause these insane speeds? Has the Idea of nerfing poly carbons, then nanos and MWD's been considered instead? If so, again, why was it dropped in favor of nerfing ships speed instead?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 18:31:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Synapse Archae Edited by: Synapse Archae on 07/10/2008 18:09:39 I'd like to know what CCP plans to replace nanos with for small gang warfare. Assualt ships are broken, black ops are broken, recons are fragile and tough to fit, RR bs are slow, bombers are slow and inneffective, ceptors are fast but very ineffective.
There are no compelling alternatives. Breaking the one thing that fits this role before replacing it would be irresponsible.
A mix of EAS, AFs and inties? Fast aligning ships like hacs will still be viable for fast operations. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 19:01:00 -
[105]
Edited by: lecrotta on 07/10/2008 19:04:15
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
A mix of EAS, AFs and inties? Fast aligning ships like hacs will still be viable for fast operations.
Friggie gangs that can be wiped out by warriors II's and medium sized gun or missile spams?.
Fast aligning hacs for fast operations???????. Wtf are you going on about??????
Would you care to clarify that absurd drivel you just spouted or are you just spewing out words?.
Never post again please miss Lyria Skydancer you are an embarrassment to pvp and to eve.
|
SSteejans
Blake Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 19:55:00 -
[106]
have the people in charge of the speed nerf changes looked at their targets much. the nerf is targeted at the very very few individuals who fly VERY expensive ships and pods to achieve crazy speeds. these people are flying at a great risk due to the extremely fragile nature of "nano" ships, and have extreme isk risks if they are defeated, which they are regularly. the proposed massive changes seem to be due to a tiny fraction of a percent of the eve population who are able to bring a select few ships to extreme speeds though extreme effort and expenditure. this seems like something they deserve to have due to the amount of effort, time, isk and risk involved.
in previous dev blogs about speed it was stated that an average pilot with no special implants and just a t2 mwd were achieving the "insane" speeds, which is contradictory to the evidence provided in the charts in said dev blog. please evaluate your thoughts again and explain how there is a problem with using no implants and standard t2 modules to make any ship go fast.
currently no HAC or even t1 frigate can come close to the speeds an interceptor can achieve with the same kind of gear.
please explain how the bolded statement needs massive sweeping changes that will create many many more unbalances that will need even more time and effort to be spent to fix. _______________ if CCP's logs really never show anything, i have to wonder, do they even have logs? |
SSteejans
Blake Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 20:01:00 -
[107]
Edited by: SSteejans on 07/10/2008 20:01:10 edit: double post. got an error first time.. please delete this. _______________ if CCP's logs really never show anything, i have to wonder, do they even have logs? |
AiYuJiao
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 20:06:00 -
[108]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 07/10/2008 19:55:20
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
A mix of EAS, AFs and inties?
Friggie gangs that can be wiped out by warriors II's and medium sized gun or missile spams?. These kind of gangs get owned by everything now on tq with speed as it is ffs.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Fast aligning ships like hacs will still be viable for fast operations.
Fast aligning hacs for fast operations, wtf are you going on about??????.
Making up vague and silly comments to try and make ships that will be reduced to virtual uselessness (cruiser sized and below and especially hacs) by this absurd nerf perhaps.
Or would you care to clarify that absurd drivel you just spouted?.
Never post again please miss Lyria Skydancer you are utterly transparent in your lies and manipulation and a embarrassment to pvp and to eve.
you sir, do not seem to know what youre talking about. frigate gangs still work. they just have to pick their targets. ive been in a gang of faction frigates and a few destroyers. we ran 20 jumps through lowsec, scored several kills, then found a carrier onlining a POS, proceeded to tackle it for 10 minutes while we waited for bigger guns to show up. if a carrier with smartbombs, heavy neuts and a near endless supply of drones cant take out a 10 man frigate gang in 10 minutes.... seems your little smack theory is wrong.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 00:43:00 -
[109]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 07/10/2008 19:55:20
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
A mix of EAS, AFs and inties?
Friggie gangs that can be wiped out by warriors II's and medium sized gun or missile spams?. These kind of gangs get owned by everything now on tq with speed as it is ffs.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Fast aligning ships like hacs will still be viable for fast operations.
Fast aligning hacs for fast operations, wtf are you going on about??????.
Making up vague and silly comments to try and make ships that will be reduced to virtual uselessness (cruiser sized and below and especially hacs) by this absurd nerf perhaps.
Or would you care to clarify that absurd drivel you just spouted?.
Never post again please miss Lyria Skydancer you are utterly transparent in your lies and manipulation and a embarrassment to pvp and to eve.
Learn to play. I have tried out the changes on sisi. I've tackled drone boats for several minutes in my malediction. Warrior IIs a problem for you? Learn to use your weapons for protection. Learn to fit a light tank even on a frig. Just because YOU get obliterated by warrior IIs doesn't mean everyone else is/will be. Oh and you can go ahead and fly your "great" tier 2 bulky BC in "fast" ops while I'll be in my hacs and we'll see about the worthlessness of hacs. Too much emo'ing over nothing tbh. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Jesse Jamess
Caldari Red Tides
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 00:46:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Jesse Jamess on 08/10/2008 00:47:33 MAYBE WE SHOULD NERF SMART CARS, BECAUSE WITH ENOUGH MONEY THEY CAN GO FASTER THAN A FERRARI...
this nerf could very well be a game ender for alot of people... but i guess we will see...
its not like we get much of a choice in how our pay to play game actually plays....
|
|
Xori Ruscuv
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 01:00:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Jesse Jamess Edited by: Jesse Jamess on 08/10/2008 00:47:33 MAYBE WE SHOULD NERF SMART CARS, BECAUSE WITH ENOUGH MONEY THEY CAN GO FASTER THAN A FERRARI...
this nerf could very well be a game ender for alot of people... but i guess we will see...
its not like we get much of a choice in how our pay to play game actually plays....
If everything people cried about was a game ender, this game would have died years ago...
|
Jesse Jamess
Caldari Red Tides
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 03:42:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Xori Ruscuv
Originally by: Jesse Jamess Edited by: Jesse Jamess on 08/10/2008 00:47:33 MAYBE WE SHOULD NERF SMART CARS, BECAUSE WITH ENOUGH MONEY THEY CAN GO FASTER THAN A FERRARI...
this nerf could very well be a game ender for alot of people... but i guess we will see...
its not like we get much of a choice in how our pay to play game actually plays....
If everything people cried about was a game ender, this game would have died years ago...
and attitudes that basically state ccp do whatever you want with my money and i dont care... is what allows companys to ignore input...
im not saying im right, im stating my opinion against the nerf.
|
Smokie McLottapot
Caldari Keepers Of The Gate
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 03:44:00 -
[113]
All the speed nerf is going to do is promote blob warfare. It will be 1700's warfare brought to eve. You line up here, I'll line up over there and we'll shoot each other till everyone dies. No tactics, No way to break the blobs.
But then again I guess thats how the BOD's want it huh?
Maybe CCP should pull there head outta BOD's ass, and do whats best for eve and not what there "elite" childern want. My Siggy :) Prove it wrong!
Originally by: SirMolle Strategy
|
greeny knight
Amarr Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:22:00 -
[114]
i'm a long time player and saw the dual mwd ravens , why don't you implement that when you use more then 1 type of module that speed you up but you get penelized like hell if you use a combo of mods, for example, you have a interceptor with 1 mwd on fine then he puts a nanofiber in low , sig radius goos up 200% , instead of a nano in low he useses a overdrive injection system 200% penalty on his enertia ? so you stil have a variation in ship layouts but we can have a chance to splatt hem like flies
isn't it a better solusion then nerving with the bat so you break somthing again that whas not intended ??
and pleas fix cloackers , make the mods so they only can used on the ships they designd for
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
Murkon Salesgirl
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:48:00 -
[115]
How do you intend to finally rebalance afterburner vs MWD? It seems the M = mandatory in most cases, no, in fact, in all cases where there's fitting left for a speed module, it's always the MWD.
The current problem with this is really simple to analyze: AB will help you avoid turrets at close range (or with a turret disruptor at long range), but the speed is simply too slow to avoid missiles and drones. Also, more speed is required to avoid bubbles or to burn back to gates etc, making MWD the obvious choice.
Suggestion for rebalancing: Make a script for AB (we know how ccp loves scripts!). Script would increase speed and acceleration (without the added mass of ab/mwd), but only for 1 activation as it would increase reactivation time. This would allow AB to have a short fast burst usage for the purpose of burning to gate/bubbles etc. For ships that rely on constant high speed, the MWD would remain the preferred option.
This would remove half the reason for automatic usage of MWD on pretty much every ship type. Think about it CCP. |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:48:00 -
[116]
Originally by: AiYuJiao
you sir, do not seem to know what youre talking about. frigate gangs still work. they just have to pick their targets. ive been in a gang of faction frigates and a few destroyers. we ran 20 jumps through lowsec, scored several kills
I do not know what im talking about???.
We are talking about gang vs gang pvp and your bleating on about the ability for a bunch of frigs to gank a few solo morons and tackle one of the slowest and most vulnerable ships in the game if not supported?.
Maybe you should read back a little more before you make claims about ppl not knowing what they are talking about.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 07:58:00 -
[117]
Edited by: lecrotta on 08/10/2008 07:58:31
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Learn to play. I have tried out the changes on sisi. I've tackled drone boats for several minutes in my malediction. Warrior IIs a problem for you? Learn to use your weapons for protection. Learn to fit a light tank even on a frig. Just because YOU get obliterated by warrior IIs doesn't mean everyone else is/will be.
Oh joy you managed to tackle solo a single ship, im sure that means that if you and he were in a gang you would still be able to survive longer than the first volley?. We did gang vs gang combat on sisi when the nerf was in place and we tried out frig gangs, all of us had high sp and were good pilots and they sucked at anything apart from ganking solo morons.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Oh and you can go ahead and fly your "great" tier 2 bulky BC in "fast" ops while I'll be in my hacs and we'll see about the worthlessness of hacs.
You and ppl like you disgust me, you make up crap on a forum that is for real problems and solutions just to serve your pathetic wishes.
My BS aligns in under 10 secs, BC align even faster and cruisers not much faster than BC and none of them faster enough to make any difference in pvp so stop trying to make up nonexistent pvp scenarios where they will be useful.
You disgust me.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 10:01:00 -
[118]
Originally by: thrillhelm well i just want to reply to the topic instead of everyone that wants to critizize how they are doing this lets be logical do ya really think that by slowing ships down it will hurt the game . I think not. what ccp is doing is making the game more as it was intended a tactical game. there will be more engagments better engagments and more tactical fights rather than a few fast ships picking there fights getting back to gates when they dont wanna fight. and just plain old boring. what happened to nice gangs of all ship types jamming damping webbing.and all having a tactical role. the point being whats wrong with tactical gangs because those of us asking to keep the ships fast have gotten away from that. so let me just throw out there 3 things that i miss some good some bad. number one is putting together a gang using each ships highlights. and not its ability to go fast. alot of great ships set simply because they cant go fast. makes no sense. number 2 i miss flying around and going oh crap when i hit a bubble. thats how it should be thats what there 4 if we can motor out in 2 secs guys whats the fun when ya hit a bubble and its ok thats not the intended effect and i dont like that. they are in place to make it difficult to travel. and number 3 length of engagments really stink with the nano gangs no tank. so its can we get one no lets warp away and keep waiting for easier targets we go 12 k pretty hard to force the issue there aye. and battles will be much more intense and longer funner and more frequent with alot better tactics and such. also all ships are getting it so if ya had a fast ship you will still have a fast ship. so in closing what the nay sayers to nerfing are really saying is hey its not fair my ship cant outrun bubbles missles drones ceptors guns and can pick engagments come on guys do ya really think you should go faster than drones and missles and that the only ships in game that should should be able to battle u should be limited to 4 or 5 and thats it. maybe they should give us forcefields we could turn on whenever we dont feel like fighting that would be great. final thought if u are good at pvp you will be just as good after they fix it. i like both methods of fighting i have alot of fun nano and not but lets face it it needs fixed guys let ccp do there work and get it done. theres a reason this game has lasted so long and its not because of nano ships its because of staying realsitic ships outrunning things 1 1000000 of there mass is not very realalistic just wanted to shed my opinion on the subject thanks thrill
--- DIY copying in Liekuri 20:1 mineral compression Eve Online folding@home team |
Vengal Seyhan
Sten Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 11:22:00 -
[119]
My only question is :
It's 9PM here (in GMT +10 land), on Wednesday the 8th of October. That makes it about midday in Iceland.
Where's the live dev blog that was scheduled for 8:00am? Where can I find answers from devs to some of the questions that have been asked?
All in all this has been a prety unpleasant thread to read, full of whining. I came here to find updated dev comments, not flaming and complaining.
|
Kazuma Saruwatari
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 11:27:00 -
[120]
Originally by: REV001 Where is the written update on the changes that has been promised and never came ?
Everyone flooded the thread demanding for it and everyone had their own ideas that sounded far better than what CCP could think up and so didnt release their changes instead for fear of embarrasment?
...what it was a hypothesis -
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |