EVE Search - Small targets vs. large Howitzer....who says they can't hit?

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Small targets vs. large Howitzer....who says they can't hit?

» 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)
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.22 20:39:00 - [1] http://www.vampirebat.com/war/AC130_GunshipMed.wmv For all those people saying "for realism's sake you can't have a large caliber howtizer hitting small targets." Anyways forget the argument and enjoy the video...you've all prolly seen it, but always remember: Playing video games CAN be good job training! And don't hit the mosque! "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
Vigilant	Posted - 2004.06.22 21:26:00 - [2] Ok, being a military sorta expert (8 years active, 6 years Working in the field)....The AC-130 has vast array of weapons at it disposal other than the 105MM Howitzer...25mm Mini Guns, 40 MM cannon...etc. These weapons are (25mm and 40mm) are generally used for AP and Light Vehicle Destruction.. 105MM is generally used for Anti Tank and Infrastructure (buildings) destruction... Thus..realism..does not reflect much here since most BS are runing around with only Heavy Weapons...instad of a mixture of Small, Medium, and Heavy Weapons... Yeah, the 105MM Howi works great on people, has been for 60 plus years...but mostly in the INDIRECT Fire Role...vice the Direct Fire role... Just my cents on the subject..yea we should forget the argument and let CCP fix it Some more linkage for all to see....Nice link... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130.htm
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.22 21:35:00 - [3] Yeah that video just makes my day every time. It's the truth though, lots of guns for different purposes. I just thought this video illustrated that a howitzer CAN hit a person. Although it stands to reason that due to the distance the person had a low transversal speed....although they probably weren't thinking about that at the time. Anybody know the Arabic word for transversal speed?? Can't you just imagine?? You're being bombed by a gunship you can't even see...your fellow freedom fighter shouts "Get your transveral speed high enough his turrets won't be able to track you! RUN!" *BAM BAM BAM* Explosive shells! wtfpwned h3xploit. Also...think about how the gunner shot right through anything in his way....and the shots went though and owned the target. Anybody else want to complain about how stargates get in the way?? If a crime fighter fights crime, and a firefighter fights fire...what does a freedom fighter fight? Owned. Don't screw with the Afghanis. "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
S3VYN	Posted - 2004.06.22 23:23:00 - [4] I'd like to see it hit a fighter jet with any of its weapons... ------------------------------------- // The views expressed by this poster are not the views of the poster's corporation, alliance, planet or television network... but they should be.
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.22 23:54:00 - [5] Originally by: Vigilant 25mm Mini Guns, That'll prolly do the trick. Besides, how many hundreds of years into the future is Eve supposed to be? Have they still not bloody designed a turret that can track a small target?? Don't forget in space also there is no wind or gravity...hence very little resistance when turning even the biggest turret. So if you want a reality based argument...there is no excuse for large turrets having low tracking speed. Now if you want to argue from a game-balance perspective, then you'll have more credibility...but not a lot because it's buggered in terms of that too. "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
S3VYN	Posted - 2004.06.23 00:34:00 - [6] If we're talking about what I want, personally, it's for all ships to have value. I don't like the idea of a game of this complexity being nothing more than a race to get the biggest ship possible. Each ship should have distinct uses and pilots should choose which ship they will be using based on the task they intend to carry out. Regardless of friction and physics moving a 4 ton turret will be significantly harder than moving a 400 pound turret. No matter how you slice it. ------------------------------------- // The views expressed by this poster are not the views of the poster's corporation, alliance, planet or television network... but they should be.
Skelator	Posted - 2004.06.23 02:53:00 - [7] Edited by: Skelator on 23/06/2004 02:57:12 Edited by: Skelator on 23/06/2004 02:56:01 Originally by: CHUD Originally by: Vigilant 25mm Mini Guns, That'll prolly do the trick. Besides, how many hundreds of years into the future is Eve supposed to be? Have they still not bloody designed a turret that can track a small target?? Don't forget in space also there is no wind or gravity...hence very little resistance when turning even the biggest turret. So if you want a reality based argument...there is no excuse for large turrets having low tracking speed. Now if you want to argue from a game-balance perspective, then you'll have more credibility...but not a lot because it's buggered in terms of that too. So your telling me there should be No Problem for This Big Guns To Track This Small Light and Quick as HE11 Umm Ok. They have us Surrounded again.. the Poor Bastards
Salgurdar	Posted - 2004.06.23 05:30:00 - [8] Edited by: Salgurdar on 23/06/2004 05:32:41 Hehe, I love it when people link back to reality to support an arguement in unreality. Simply put, physics (be it physics in a 0 gravity vacuum, or the kind bound by earth's atmosphere and gravity) can't be used as a basis for argument for the way things behave in Eve. CCP are striving for a balance of ship class, and I think they are getting better at it. Edit - Besides that, that video is quite amazing. The AC-130 certainly is a versitile combat platform. And if we learn anything from it, it's the diversity of weaponry it carries. "We all know what we are, we're just haggling about the price" - W.C. Fields Rolschau > anyway... because some jerk today... (it is soon 5 am) will turn on the smoke alarm all over the place and then go inside our room to check.. then I will stay up and not get a shock while sleeping and die.... I will be playing eve untill the jerk shows up
jabb0r	Posted - 2004.06.23 05:55:00 - [9] full broadside sir ! ---------------------------------------------- this is a signature winamp-radio-list
ActiveX	Posted - 2004.06.23 05:59:00 - [10] This is what I want, I want to need different guns for different things... It's really annoying trying to knock sense into someone who uses 6 of the same gun and expects it to work everywhere... ____________ Sex / Rank 9 / SP: 1280 of 2304000
Vel Kyri	Posted - 2004.06.23 07:49:00 - [11] Originally by: CHUD Originally by: Vigilant 25mm Mini Guns, Don't forget in space also there is no wind or gravity...hence very little resistance when turning even the biggest turret. So if you want a reality based argument...there is no excuse for large turrets having low tracking speed. what are you on?? tracking is not about wind resistance/gravity.. its mainly about momentum... ie- trying to get the mass moving and stopping. now even in 0g environments, large mass objects (like huge guns etc) will need a LOT of force to make them move - hence, slower tracking. -----
Loka	Posted - 2004.06.23 07:58:00 - [12] Originally by: Vigilant These weapons are (25mm and 40mm) are generally used for AP and Light Vehicle Destruction.. 105MM is generally used for Anti Tank and Infrastructure (buildings) destruction... Thus..realism..does not reflect much here since most BS are runing around with only Heavy Weapons...instad of a mixture of Small, Medium, and Heavy Weapons... Answer me a question. Is a Tank able to destroy another Tank with his main weapon? Yes. Is a mixed BS (large/medium/small mounted) able to destroy another BS? No. You see the difference? I hope so _____________________________________ Dead or Alive
Moah	Posted - 2004.06.23 09:17:00 - [13] Originally by: jabb0r full broadside sir ! that picture is stunning the shockwaves on the whater, just incredible... Fancy.
ActiveX	Posted - 2004.06.23 09:57:00 - [14] Originally by: Loka Originally by: Vigilant These weapons are (25mm and 40mm) are generally used for AP and Light Vehicle Destruction.. 105MM is generally used for Anti Tank and Infrastructure (buildings) destruction... Thus..realism..does not reflect much here since most BS are runing around with only Heavy Weapons...instad of a mixture of Small, Medium, and Heavy Weapons... Answer me a question. Is a Tank able to destroy another Tank with his main weapon? Yes. Is a mixed BS (large/medium/small mounted) able to destroy another BS? No. You see the difference? I hope so That tank has more than one weapon. Game Over. Please Play Again. ____________ Sex / Rank 9 / SP: 1280 of 2304000
S3VYN	Posted - 2004.06.23 14:10:00 - [15] I actually like where this thread is going: AC10 > ground troops F22 > AC10 ----------------------------------------- Tank = Tank Tank > ground troops (in limited numbers) A10 > Tank F22 > A10 ----------------------------------------- A great example that you NEED multiple platforms to combat multiple platforms. Again, wouldn't the game be (and isn't it) more fun when you have to actually strategize to combat? Won't that be an even bigger asset as the outlined player owned structures start to arrive? Personally, I'm tired of a couple of things that were fixed by the recent balance tweaks. The most major is that the game was an all out race to get either a Raven or a Blasterthron. What was left after that? Once in one or the other you could pretty much strut around as much as you want. Now you have to be wary of that wondering Taranis with his two Blackbird buddies. ------------------------------------- // The views expressed by this poster are not the views of the poster's corporation, alliance, planet or television network... but they should be.
Reluah	Posted - 2004.06.23 15:27:00 - [16] Originally by: Loka Originally by: Vigilant These weapons are (25mm and 40mm) are generally used for AP and Light Vehicle Destruction.. 105MM is generally used for Anti Tank and Infrastructure (buildings) destruction... Thus..realism..does not reflect much here since most BS are runing around with only Heavy Weapons...instad of a mixture of Small, Medium, and Heavy Weapons... Answer me a question. Is a Tank able to destroy another Tank with his main weapon? Yes. Is a mixed BS (large/medium/small mounted) able to destroy another BS? No. You see the difference? I hope so not sure about the atm but pre patch a mega with 4 neutrons(L), 2neutrons(M), 1 neutron(S) (or some other funky stuff) could easily kill a battleship unless it was super tanked etc.. and as you have both kinda of guns you should be able to hit both frigs and cruisers atm also.. who said your supposed to have 8 large guns on your ship? oh and a RL battleship(large ship floating on water with big guns designed to sink other ships of the same kind, not sure what ship classes are what really :D) really do have probs hitting very small gunboats etc, so why does an eve battleship have to manage to hit frig gunboats etc? why are you supposed to be able to kill anything with 1 setup? eve ships have 1000times easier to 'refit' to suit another objective, so why should they be so uber against anything in the same setup? also you should realise that the most expencive(BS) isent always most efficient compared to the not so expencive(Frig/cruiser) etc etc etc _______ m°f
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.23 16:35:00 - [17] Good load of responses, most people pointed out the reality of things, and that is good. If we're talking reality I doubt Tempest pilots would be happy if recoil physics were present for those 1400mm guns....ouch. Get blasted 8 au in a different direction every shot you fired! But seriously, I'm much more down with game balance than realism. They should definately strive for balance first. That being said, I'm just having a rough time seeing the balance when a 100 mil ship destroy targets that cost less than a mil. You can talk til you're blue in the face about frigate and cruiser pilots needing a chance, but basically if you spend 100 mil on a ship, it SHOULD be dominant in the field. Otherwise what is the point? What it boils down to is the people who don't want to take big risks are happy at this point because it can pay off for them. Used to take some balls to fly a frigate, but now the big guns can't track em it's just become a sissyfication. Why risk your big money when you can be more effective for cheap?? Now fleet battles may be more intricate and tactically balanced...thats great. How often do we get those as compared to regular combat? Not often. Even though many of you will not agree with me, I'm sure you can probably at least understand my point. Argue with logic and I'll listen...don't quote ***** and call people a nubby. Discuss! "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
X'Alor	Posted - 2004.06.23 16:53:00 - [18] Edited by: X'Alor on 23/06/2004 18:04:53 this game reallly isn't very accurate at all as far as shooting in space is regarded. any gun shot in space has a recoil. that recoil will push the object shooting it in the opposite direction. the bigger the object(say 1400mm large projectile) the more outrageous the recoil due to mass. we are dealing with space here so it is mass related. Weight of an object comes into play with gravity. that is where and why lasers are the choice of real space weoponry. they do not recoil as it is energy and not an actual object. the only way recoil would not affect an object in space is if it has enough mass to displace the initial recoil force. the other thing is fall off.......total hogwash in space. you get something moving in space due to the next to no resistance........it keeps going on that line. there is no fall off in space. fall off is a result of gravity pulling the item downward towards it's source of gravity. so barring an object getting in the way, gravitational pulls of near by planets and or moons or any other space entity. if you aim at something 2 AU away and fire.......you should hit it......just a matter of when. fall off and range is strictly for game play and blancing of ships capabilities for all us to enjoy some challenge. Sorry for all them typos and edit.......at work, kinda rush.
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.23 17:29:00 - [19] Well said X. The whole argument was that you can't apply "reality" to this game because balancing issues would make it no fun for some players. I still love that video though. "You are clear to engage." "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
Dispader	Posted - 2004.06.23 21:54:00 - [20] I like the part where that guy is ripped into pieces. wtfpwn3d.
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.23 22:51:00 - [21] I like the part where the guy gets a shell in the butt and gets blasted like 40 feet, then gets back up and starts running. But then the gunner follows him and they play a bit of tag. "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
StoreSlem	Posted - 2004.06.23 22:55:00 - [22] Originally by: ActiveX That tank has more than one weapon. Game Over. Please Play Again. Yes, it does not have 8 80mm cannons or whatnot, it has a full complement and is still able to destroy other tanks. Battleships in eve aren't able to do both. So, argument false, please read again.
Core Bash	Posted - 2004.06.23 23:08:00 - [23] Originally by: S3VYN I'd like to see it hit a fighter jet with any of its weapons... Agreed.
CHUD	Posted - 2004.06.23 23:46:00 - [24] Given good enough targetting software I bet you it could. But thats not the argument. Your argument is that the turret can't turn fast enough to "track" the target...and it's been shown in this thread that that's a load of garbage. Not to mention being hundreds if not thousands of years in the future....with the rate technology develops...I think you get the idea. You can't realistically argue that even a 1400 mm couldn't hit a frigate. You CAN argue for that concept on a GAMEPLAY BALANCE basis, where it has some more merit...but not a lot. Anyways the devs have said they aren't happy with it how it is and are looking to rectify this situation. I agree totally that frigates should be a hardER target it hit, but not an IMPOSSIBLE target to hit. "It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again."
Weirda	Posted - 2004.06.24 00:43:00 - [25] Originally by: CHUD Given good enough targetting software I bet you it could. But thats not the argument. Your argument is that the turret can't turn fast enough to "track" the target...and it's been shown in this thread that that's a load of garbage. Not to mention being hundreds if not thousands of years in the future....with the rate technology develops...I think you get the idea. You can't realistically argue that even a 1400 mm couldn't hit a frigate. You CAN argue for that concept on a GAMEPLAY BALANCE basis, where it has some more merit...but not a lot. Anyways the devs have said they aren't happy with it how it is and are looking to rectify this situation. I agree totally that frigates should be a hardER target it hit, but not an IMPOSSIBLE target to hit. Don't really think that the dudes on foot were moving that quick... (tracking) even if they were small. Not to mention, in most cases it was the splash that scored the hit. On another note - this video is very disturbing (to Weirda). Shown it to a military friend who was in Gulf War I, and he said that most ppl wouldn't be too excited about it if they could stand next to the remains of someone that had been 'wftpwned'... especially the ones that were still moving... -- Thread Killer <END TRANSMISSION>
Bhal'rog	Posted - 2004.06.24 01:35:00 - [26] In case anyone is interested AC-130
ActiveX	Posted - 2004.06.24 02:07:00 - [27] Originally by: StoreSlem Originally by: ActiveX That tank has more than one weapon. Game Over. Please Play Again. Yes, it does not have 8 80mm cannons or whatnot, it has a full complement and is still able to destroy other tanks. Battleships in eve aren't able to do both. So, argument false, please read again. Than make them do both. Give the real big guns some real power. ____________ Sex / Rank 9 / SP: 1280 of 2304000
Jet Jagowrath	Posted - 2004.06.24 02:26:00 - [28] Am i the only person that finds the perverse enjoyment people have expressed in watching this footage sickening? Those are real people down there dying, comparisons to a game in this context should not be made. an upset JJx King Jadrut of The Alliance That Kicks Your Arse Very Badly And Whoops You Like You've Never Seen Before, TATKYAVBAWYLYNSB for short, owns all Jove space, stay away or bad things will happen to you and your hamsters and/or gerbils mmmk La Maison de tous les plaisirs - Where politics and pleasure meet...
ActiveX	Posted - 2004.06.24 03:12:00 - [29] Originally by: Jet Jagowrath Am i the only person that finds the perverse enjoyment people have expressed in watching this footage sickening? Those are real people down there dying, comparisons to a game in this context should not be made. an upset JJx Seemed odd for a second why not hitting the mosque was more important than the killing of those people. But then I realized the mosque is probably more important overall to them. ____________ Sex / Rank 9 / SP: 1280 of 2304000
S3VYN	Posted - 2004.06.24 04:20:00 - [30] The Mosque could only be hit if it were being used as a military supplement. They ARE real people and they ARE real combatants and war, as they say, is purely hell. I agree, I wouldn't have posted the video but to each their own, eh? I may have enjoyed the discussion more without it but it's actually going rather swimmingly as it is. I do, however, feel the need to say that anyone, anywhere, who thinks an AC-130 stands a snowball's chance in hell of surviving against an F-22, F-16, F-14 or for that matter an FA-18 is under some SERIOUS dillusion. It is a HUGE, orbitting bulk designed to inflict enormous amounts of damage on ground targets. Note that all the weapons on an AC-130 are on the same side of the aircraft. Not that hard to dodge for a skilled pilot in a nimble craft. My only real point is, a craft which is MUCH smaller with MUCH less crew and MUCH less "potent" armament properly equipped, designed and deployed would make EXTREMELY short work of an AC-130 (or B-52, or DC-10 or... or... or...). To those who say we shouldn't use any "real life" physics or ideals to compare to game play... what else do we have to base it on? Gotta start somewhere, and Earth's physics are fairly well documented and tested, unlike the theoretical (and wrong) astro physics alluded to earlier. I think CCP is doing a great job looking for balance. A properly equipped frigate piloted by a skilled individual SHOULD be dangerous and hard to hit. It shouldn't be able to take down a battleship alone (I haven't read or heard many stories where that has happened) but in a properly prepared fleet it should be more than just ornamental and an instrumental part of the warfare. I like the direction of preparing a ship for a purpose and being fairly screwed if something else arises. I also understand, however, the argument people make that they spent their 110 million isk on their battleship (I've had my share of em) and they should be able to single handedly blaze a trail throughout 0.0 space with it! Just isn't really justified, imho, when there are SO many ship and equipping options available. There should be no "perfect" setup. ------------------------------------- // The views expressed by this poster are not the views of the poster's corporation, alliance, planet or television network... but they should be.
Mang0o	Posted - 2004.06.24 05:49:00 - [31] No you just can¦t a-have-a the Mang0o
ActiveX	Posted - 2004.06.24 08:43:00 - [32] An AC130 wont down an F-22... But why wouldn't an Aegis Cruiser be able to kill a Scarab inboard? ____________ Sex / Rank 9 / SP: 1280 of 2304000
VossKarr	Posted - 2004.06.24 11:55:00 - [33] Edited by: VossKarr on 24/06/2004 12:04:40 While we're on the subject of turrets... http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/2K22_Tunguska_M-1.wmv http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/9M88_Kortik_Kashtan.wmv would be great if we had something like that^ (a combined guns/light missiles turret) to mount on our battleships for anti-frig defense in EVE. http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/9K331_Tor-M1.wmv http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/S-300PMU.wmv
Gyrn Fzirth	Posted - 2004.06.25 02:44:00 - [34] Edited by: Gyrn Fzirth on 25/06/2004 02:46:22 Originally by: X'Alor Edited by: X'Alor on 23/06/2004 18:04:53any gun shot in space has a recoil. that recoil will push the object shooting it in the opposite direction. the bigger the object(say 1400mm large projectile) the more outrageous the recoil due to mass. we are dealing with space here so it is mass related. Weight of an object comes into play with gravity. While that is all true, there are mechanisms in place right now that help obviate the recoil issues. The big guns, even the smaller, high rof guns, on a battleship have recoil dampeners. Have you ever noticed when watching the videos, the guns fire and seem to shorten in length? That's because the recoil kicks them into the dampeners. This is why the battleships don't go floating off in the opposite direction. Todays dampeners operate mostly on hydraulics or pneumatics, I would think. 10,000 years in the future who is to say that there won't be recoil -eliminators-, or perhaps even do what most weapons do today and actually harness the recoil energy to reload the chamber, or store it for future use. Imagine a solenoidal generator, with the core being the barrel of one of those big guns, absorbing the kinetic energy and converting it to electricity... Originally by: X'Alor that is where and why lasers are the choice of real space weoponry. they do not recoil as it is energy and not an actual object. There are arguments against that, but it is fundamentally true. Originally by: X'Alor the only way recoil would not affect an object in space is if it has enough mass to displace the initial recoil force. See above :) =============== Killboard: http://www.celeskills.com
Mave Dallard	Posted - 2004.06.25 03:37:00 - [35] Well, I know it was a while back, lol, but to bring up something X'Alor said... Originally by: X'Alor the other thing is fall off.......total hogwash in space. you get something moving in space due to the next to no resistance........it keeps going on that line. there is no fall off in space. fall off is a result of gravity pulling the item downward towards it's source of gravity. First, that wonderful thing we like to call "Zero-G" is not exactly correct, for astronaughts in particular, they are not really "floating" but actually continuesly falling. Now, to move on to the scientific and quite researched area of the message Fall off is not "total" hogwash in space... physics and science, even in space, apply. Despite there being "no" gravity in space, science dictates that there is ALWAYS some gravitational force pulling on ALL objects. For instance, the sun's gravitational pull, keeps pluto orbiting the sun, despite obviously being much MORE then 2 AU away. Science dictates that there is no way to fully get away from gravity, as all objects create gravity (yes, even the human body has a gravitational pull on other objects around it, its just not noticable due to the earth's gravitational pull and no, as of yet, we cannot get far enough away from a gravity source to prove it but still science says its so ). Now, while fall off is very much lessened in space (as compared to being on Earth atleast), it still will exist without some type of correction or assistance from a force on said object to keep it going in the exact same direction (say.. that engine on the back of your ship). So that sabot round you fired at another frigate or whatnot is being pulled off course (what we know as fall off here) by the asteroids your near, or the moon, or a planet or even a star that is several thousand kilometers away and therefore at one point, will no longer be moving on that exact same path. So there is truth to the fall off idea in EVE, but off course its main use in the game is for balancing... would it be fair for any weapon, no matter its size or anything, to be able to shoot across an entire solar system and be able to exactly hit something? I would say not. Then, in theory, people could destroy a station or player built structure without fear of death. Pure evil btw Quote: If there is one reason you should fear me, its because you don't know me.
King Kill33	Posted - 2004.06.25 03:45:00 - [36] Originally by: ActiveX Seemed odd for a second why not hitting the mosque was more important than the killing of those people. But then I realized the mosque is probably more important overall to them. The RoE disallow engagement of medical and religious structures unless they are being used directly to launch a military assault. Read up on the 'Law of Armed Conflict' I work on AC-130U and AC-130H model gunships for a living, so I'm already pretty aware of what they can do
Iluyen	Posted - 2004.06.25 08:32:00 - [37] AC-130 stands a snowball's chance in hell of surviving against an F-22, F-16, F-14 or for that matter an FA-18 is under some SERIOUS dillusion I think the jets you are mentioning cost a bit more then the AC130 unlike the frigate/BS the people thinking that BS would ever be developed as they were considering their current cost and performance vs frigates/cruisers is under some serious dillusions.
S3VYN	Posted - 2004.06.25 14:53:00 - [38] Edited by: S3VYN on 25/06/2004 14:55:11 AC-130 "Spooky" - $75 million (1992 dollars) F-14 - $38 million F-16 - $26.9 million F-22 - couldn't find it quickly, gotta go to work ------------------------------------- // The views expressed by this poster are not the views of the poster's corporation, alliance, planet or television network... but they should be.
Raeff	Posted - 2004.06.25 15:07:00 - [39] average runner = 40 meters in roughly 5-6 seconds(at top speed) frigate = minimum 250 meters per 1 second / maximum 15+km per 1 second battleship = autotargeting system that cannot predict sudden zig zagging and bob and weeving ac-130 = auto & manual targeting(allowing the gunner to try to predict sudden changes in movement with upcoming obsticles on the ground & such) they can not be compared because guess what .. eve ships do not have manual targeting!
Ostren	Posted - 2004.06.25 15:37:00 - [40] Not sure where this topic his headed but it has gotten a bit off subject from the original post Ostren _____________________________ Read the Rules!

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.