open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Supercaps, Caps, Drones and Fighters, a New Zulupark Blog
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (110)

Author Topic

Airdorn
Gallente
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:00:00 - [301]
 

Why has CCP been beating around the bush here for the past 4 years? Just go ahead and make all the ships exactly the same in all respects.. We can modify the paintjobs of that 1 common ship model, but that's it.

That will solve the problem of over/under power, "ship of the month", whining about ships being overpowered, etc.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:00:00 - [302]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 21/10/2007 14:01:17
Let's do some simple math:

My two carrier alts can launch/delegate ten fighters each (20 fighters total) at a cost of ~2.5b isk, including hull, mods, drones, etc.

One mothership pilots can launch/delegate 20 fighters total, at a cost of 15b isk, only counting the hull.

Same amount of lag, and a hell of a lot less risk, especially in laggy situations. Plus, they can remote rep eachother, giving either ~4 capital repair systems, instead of 2.

Why have motherships at all?

Ahistaja
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 - [303]
 

Edited by: Ahistaja on 21/10/2007 14:09:09
It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

However, if CCP is unable to fix fighter lag... I wouldn't mind this change. I think people would get used to it after a while. Keep in mind drone interface is being improved in Rev3, so at this time we're not seeing the whole picture. At the very least least this change reduces lag in 100-capital megafleets, which is the main problem in this game at this point IMHO. It also puts more emphasis on non-capital ships, which is welcome, and puts more demand for skill into fleet combat for both assigner and assignee's side (which should benefit BoB and MC as opposed to the dumb goon nublets, amirite?)

Also, while it's being cried as big mothership nerf... with the increased importance of supportfleets, it would simultaneously be a buff for the usefulness of Titans.

Furthermore,
Quote:

Have you considered the assault ship to have a fighter control role? Give them a damage bonus to fighters or similar under their control. This would be for the ishkur and one assault ship in each race.

This.


P.S. The only change carriers really need is fighters not auto-aggressing, so the fleet combat lag wouldn't unduly favor them because of automatic aggression and thus immunity to lag. By all means let the carriers-motherships have their 10-25 fighters, but make them engage each opponent manually, so they would be subjected to same lag handicap as everyone else.

Inturist
FSB-ALFA
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: Jamie Hara
Finally CCP realizes that Carriers and Motherships should not be solo pwn mobiles. It's a great idea CCP! Promoting team work in a Massively Multiplayer Game such as Eve is awesome.

Keep up the great work CCP!

Cool


SAying n00b who barely ever saw a carrier not saying about that u flying one Evil or Very Mad

Perpello
Astralite Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 - [305]
 

Awful idea. Sad

Carriers will see no reason to take risk in direct combat.

At best, it will result in carriers returning to POS hugging but this time outside force field. At worst, pilots will simply feel their carrier has become an expensive battleship, think about time and money they wasted, click cancel account.

Seriously, the quicker you trash can this idea the better it will be for everyone.

A better idea would be looking into triage mode.

VCBee 263
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:02:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: VCBee 263 on 21/10/2007 14:02:19
edit: bah..

Carriers suck. Just remove caps from the game alltogether.

Tetsujin
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:03:00 - [307]
 

Hey look Zulupark don't feel bad no-one's going to make fun of you for acknowledging that your ideas are really awful and throwing them away. Please don't feel compelled to go through with them in an attempt to maintain face buddy. :)

Zaylc
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:04:00 - [308]
 

this is the worst idea i've ever heard of. it would prob be best if you went back to your old department. no offense but this is total horse****

Gegina
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:04:00 - [309]
 

I was gonna write up something constructive but then i took another peek at that dev blog so here is my reply to you mister Zulupark:

Hey! I'm with stupid!

Inflexible
Shokei
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 - [310]
 

I loled hard until I realised someone actually meant it seriously. Rolling Eyes
If this is introduction of jump capable freighters, don't forget to increase hangar space and rename carrier class to something else.

Jamie Hara
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 - [311]
 

Originally by: Inturist
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Finally CCP realizes that Carriers and Motherships should not be solo pwn mobiles. It's a great idea CCP! Promoting team work in a Massively Multiplayer Game such as Eve is awesome.

Keep up the great work CCP!

Cool


SAying n00b who barely ever saw a carrier not saying about that u flying one Evil or Very Mad

Hey now, lets keep it civil in here. I've seen plenty of carriers and I fly one. Big whoop, you have to delegate fighters. Bring some friends, Razz. Fly a smaller ship if you want to solo.

Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 - [312]
 

I know they (CCP) said this wasn't a finalized idea yet, however I must protest now..this idea is going totally the wrong way!

Removing the amount of fighters a mothership can launch at a time? I'm sorry, but whats the point of having a mothership then?
Launch 5 fighters, then assign them, launch 5 more you say? In other words the mothership itself won't be able to utilize it's own fighters...right....

I'm very VERY concerned about this idea and the direction CCP are taking this. Being the owner of a carrier myself, going towards flying a mothership, I now feel compelled to stop training for a mothership, as there's no reason left to even fly one.

Please please, PLEASE scrap this idea CCP, for the love of the last few bits of fun we have left!


El'jonson
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:05:00 - [313]
 

Carriers and MS are fine, they shoulf kick ass and if someone is dumb enough to go 1 on 1 tough luck. As most of the carrier and MS pilots have pointed out its rare that they go into battle with no surport so making this change is a waste of time. What CCP should fix is...

1. The Lagg
2. Drone and fighter bugs and the control interface
3. If you want more people to use their carriers and MS in support roles fix and improve the triarge mod so that it isn't some sort of suiside handbrake

Bob Novak
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:06:00 - [314]
 

This proposed fix kind of falls in between two better solutions and fails to be either of them.

The main problem with fighters is that they pack too much punch into one ship and turn people into solo pwnmobiles (like titans were until they got properly balanced). A better solution would be

1) Cut fighters to 10 total for both motherships and carriers.
2) Don't allow carriers or motherships to direct any fighters themselves. It doesn't make sense that a ship that is basically a giant hollowed out container for drones would also have all the infrastructure for controlling them at long ranges/across warp distances, engaging multiple targets, etc.
3) Allow carriers and mothership to assign fighters 2 at a time to ships of battlecruiser size or smaller. This will prevent fleets from having both a huge fighter ball and, for example, massive battleship sniping capabilities at the same time. Fleets will have to choose between "fighters furball" and conventional battleship tactics.
4) Reduce the ratio of fighters to actually player piloted ships. This flows from point 1 and point 3. By allowing capitals to deploy only 10 fighters, and assign only 2 fighters per friendly ship, it prevents a fleet from having 10x as many fighters active as it has actual players. This will reduce the lag for real players, which is fair because fighters don't experience lag and we should not be aimed at giving drones a better playing experience, only players.
5) To make up for this "nerf" (balance) perhaps carriers can get a new small bonus, and a big bonus for motherships (e.g. 5% reduction to energy nosferatu cycle, 5% increase to nos range for carriers (per level), increasing to 30% bonus per level for motherships, so they can act very effectively in neutralising enemy capital).


This changes would be fair in improving the problem of lagging fighters but also give something back to people who already bought a mothership so they don't feel too bad.

Montaire
Krusual Developments
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:06:00 - [315]
 

I want to be as constructive as possible, because getting a game developer to "Engage" with the community can be a difficult process when 90% of my co-players are warming up the tar and stocking up on feathers.

First - I understand your concerns. Capital ships are a big bigger than life right now.

Your stated goal was this : they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive-and-provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships.

I'm sure you understand how incredibly difficult this is in EVE's blob-dominated enviornment. Support like what you are talking about (logistical) is ludicrously hard in a lag rich enviornment simply because of the slideshow nature of fleet fights. Lag is so horrific that these shiptypes are impractical at best.

I think your proposed fix will not work, let me tell you why. What you propose is a huge deflation to the power of carriers, in fact huge is too small a word. You are decimating their power, without adding anything to increase it. And frankly what could you even add that would be as effective in high lag situations as their current abilities ?

Also what you are doing would seriously alter the dynamics of the current EVE war. Without expressing political views you do understand that massed fighters are one of the few ways to defend against some of the current tactics in use? Your proposal would go a long way to handing total victory to one side of this conflict because you would fundamentally change the rules of war in the middle of the war itself.

Much of your approach says "We wont mess with the number of fighters you can have out total" - that seems to be an obvious effort to try and leave the total dps factor of carriers intact. But you are taking away so many advantages, and giving nothing in return. Bear in mind carriers already have to use Cyno's to jump, are 10X more expensive than battleships, get no insurance for their 20 million isk fighters (and fighters get popped often), are laborously slow and are sitting ducks if cought ratting. This is a hefty set of disadvantages. To reduce them further ? To what end ?

Also - you will have seriously hurt many small and medium sized corp and alliance's in terms of wealth. You have these ludicrously expensive component BPO's and Capital Ship BPO's out there. They are NOT cheap. And now you will have reduced the effectivness of the ship they build by easily 80%. Start to finish, building motherships requires about 30 billion in isk investments, remember you would be essentially destroying that investment.

So, enough of the reason I disagree with you. Let me propose some alternate ideas.

Ever seen Battlestar Galactica ? Notice how those big huge warships dont swat at flies all day, they pound on each other ? They only die once all that support is gone, and the support battle is still very important. Try somthing like that.

Make an honest-to-god fighter. Carrier can hold 10 of them, players can "Board" the carrier and fly them. Make them HAC equivilent.

Imagine a carrier jumping into system and the pilots docked inside undock and go looking for combat. 2 or 3 stay with the carrier for defense. The fighters cant jump through gates or cynos, they can only escape with a carrier. Give the carrier huge anticapital guns. Let carriers fight other carriers while thier parasite ships duke it out.

Alternatly leave them the way they are right now, but add some sort of balancing ship. Make Bombs usefull, have them pop fighters easily. Or make stealth bombers fire an Anti Capital weapon. Give SB's Citadel Torpedos with a huge damage mod.

When the Rorqual was developed there was an excellet rapport between Chrono and the community. I think we can reproduce that here if you start answering the most worthwhile threads and ignore the rest. But take the time to get in to a conversation. Figure out who has ideas and then brainstorm with them.

I wish you luck, this wont be an easy change.

Vaedian GER
Excidium.
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:06:00 - [316]
 

Yea right... a MOTHERSHIP can launch the same amount of Drones as a Tech1 Cruiser.

Lay off the pipe, will you?

Inturist
FSB-ALFA
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:07:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: Jamie Hara
Originally by: Inturist
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Finally CCP realizes that Carriers and Motherships should not be solo pwn mobiles. It's a great idea CCP! Promoting team work in a Massively Multiplayer Game such as Eve is awesome.

Keep up the great work CCP!

Cool


SAying n00b who barely ever saw a carrier not saying about that u flying one Evil or Very Mad

Hey now, lets keep it civil in here. I've seen plenty of carriers and I fly one. Big whoop, you have to delegate fighters. Bring some friends, Razz. Fly a smaller ship if you want to solo.


yea , and all yuor friends paying for ur carrier , or for the fighters they will lose ?

Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:07:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: Jamie Hara
Big whoop, you have to delegate fighters.


Fighter delegation is lag-inducing, boring, and broken.

Quote:
Bring some friends, Razz


CCP are meant to be encouraging small-ship gang warfare, not off-grid force projection and altasmic blobfests.

Jurgen Cartis
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:09:00 - [319]
 

Edited by: Jurgen Cartis on 21/10/2007 14:31:14
Originally by: CCP Zulupark

That's when we decided to just blog the idea, and get some feedback on 2 things:
1. Do you like this idea (that is the more-support-oriented idea)?



Where is that Picard facepalm picture?

Your last major carrier changes (the capital HP buff, and I'm not sure if you made them unable to deploy fighters from a POS forcefield) were to get Carriers and MS deployed at the front lines. With this, you may as well just assign all the figthters and sit at a POS running gang links. People don't train over a year to do that.

Carriers are an offensive weapon, with support capabilities. If you want them to be used as more support, make them better at that. You tried that with Triage mode, however, the whole '10 minutes locked down in place AND no fighters' thing rather turned people away from it. That and the huge skill prereqs, though it was admittedly used to great effect by X13 attacking the MS in Tama.

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

2. If so, do you like the approach we're thinking about (fighter deployment limits)?



No. A max skill Carrier will deal 1000-1500 DPS (+25% for a thanatos, max 1875 theoretical DPS), depending on how many Drone Links it uses. Gank-thanatos nonwithstanding, that's not much more than a good Megathron pilot can do. So why should I train for a Thanatos now again? Sick tank over that Mega, admittedly, and much longer range to project that. . . wait a minute, that's the current state of affairs. After this,sick tank will mean hugging a POS shield and range will mean 5 AU away, at the moon.

Originally by: CCP Zulupark

3. If you liked the idea but no the solution, what propositions do you have?


A. Drone interface + lag = bad bad things. If you want to reduce fighter lag, replace the +fighters bonus a +20%/level (+60% for MS) HP/Damage bonus, and redo the control links too.

B. If you want to see more Carriers/MS being used as remote rep/cap support, make them better at doing so. Right now, a Carrier that is not in Triage is worse than a Basilisk at remote support, because the Basilisk will lock 15 seconds before the Carrier will. And cost less than 10% as much, to boot.

You want to see more Carriers running logistics? Make it worth the pilot's time to fit remote assistance. Without Triage, everything noncapital dies before you can lock, and sieged dreads can't be aided, nor can Triaged carriers. Triage mode means locking down a major asset for 10 minutes and praying you hold the field. Say hello to the sieged Dreadnoughts.


Originally by: CCP Zulupark

4. If you don't like the idea at all, why not?



I never thought I'd see this, but you've made BoB, Goonswarm and MC agree on something. Consider yourself congratulated. Now put down the nerfbat, and back away.


Originally by: CCP Zulupark

There won't be any difference between a Carrier and a Mothership!!
If this change nullifies the difference between those two ships, what's the difference today?


1 high slot, 1 tank slot, some fittings, about 1000 raw DPS, a long range ECM bomb, about a million effective HP, EW (read as: Scram and Damp) Immunity and about 30B ISK. Oh, and a MASSIVE target painted on your back.


This change will not result in you seeing more Carriers used as remote rep platforms within a support fleet. You will see more Carriers hugging POS, and more pilots spamming the drone "Engage Target" button to make their assigned fighters move. The fighter bomb (and the lag bomb that comes with it) will not be abandoned, as fighters (and all drones) are effective in a laggy environment, as they continue to shred target after target while giving commands is impossible.

Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf

But the point is that YOU are doing that damage, those are YOUR drones, that YOU are in command of. Turning the carrier into the EVE version of a sword bearing squire really isn't doing much to the epic feel of these ships.


This.

Kyodai Koga
Epsilon Lyr
Tau Ceti Federation
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:09:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: James Duar
The problem with the logic here is 2-fold: on the one hand is the underlying assumption that lag need not figure into balancing concerns. This is a HUGE mistake - lag dictates gameplay more then anything else at the moment. The battle for FAT- pretty much didn't happen because of lag. Same with JV1V. Pretty much the same with F-T. You cannot design mechanics in this game without considering the limitations of the server.

That being said - CCP needs to fix the lag as well. Most overpowered fleet tactics are overpowered precisely because of the lag - there's no fundamental reason the fighterblob is overpowered except that it's too laggy to actually shoot it or maneuver around it.

When Goonswarm has complained about figherblobs, they are complaining about the lag - not the actual blob. The lag means you can't shoot it, you can't activate mods, you can't warp out, you can't even control the heading of your ship.

There are a lot of simple measures which could reduce this - drones could be taken out of collision calculations, fighters could be rolled into squadrons and launched as groups of 5.

But we also need lag-aware/click-aware game mechanics. Carriers can't remote rep people because you can't lock them in time. There is every indication that remote rep for carriers needs to be a remote rep field/aura which heals ships within X range if this is to be their role. Instalocking of friendlies/gang mates etc.

Please - do sensible things - and don't start from the assumption that lag does not exist.


Listen to this guy, he's got some serious points in that.

The idea proposed in this devblog is terrible.

Try to simplify your thinking CCP, you're putting layer after layer on the gameplay, which indeed make it more complex and less fluid but the basement is still broken.
As it stands, you'll not be able to efficiently fix issues as long as the core of the game (lag situation, but also core gameplay) isn't solid and working.


For example, if you want to stop the carrier blobbing, and blobbing at all, why not structurate fleets a bit more like what we could have in table top wargames ? i.e: only allow 1 Titan, x numbers of capitals, y number of BS, z number of support, etc... per fleet.

Which means if you want to field a bunch of capitals/BS/whatever, you have to multiply fleets = dividing support to back them, coordinating fleet commanders, etc... this, along with some more bonus to being in a gang, should divide the blob and make huge blobs less profitable (because it'b be divided in numerous fleet, therefore recquiring more coordination and no gang benefit from one fleet to another).

Add some modifications in POS warfare to support these changes, and I think it could be a nice change to limit blobbing, make fleet warfare more tactical, improve diversity in fleet composition and overall render the whole thing a bit more logical.

Just my 2isks.

Cadela Fria
Amarr
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:09:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: Jamie Hara
Originally by: Inturist
Originally by: Jamie Hara
Finally CCP realizes that Carriers and Motherships should not be solo pwn mobiles. It's a great idea CCP! Promoting team work in a Massively Multiplayer Game such as Eve is awesome.

Keep up the great work CCP!

Cool


SAying n00b who barely ever saw a carrier not saying about that u flying one Evil or Very Mad

Hey now, lets keep it civil in here. I've seen plenty of carriers and I fly one. Big whoop, you have to delegate fighters. Bring some friends, Razz. Fly a smaller ship if you want to solo.


I'm sorry but since when was EVE a game of "You can only solo in THIS type of ship"...what happened to the sandbox? What happened to the idea that a CAPITAL SHIP, is a DANGEROUS SHIP that you don't fly your battleship solo against..

It's NOT hard science to understand! Why do people need to have it easy when dealing with a capital ship?
the phrase "pffft, it's only a carrier, 2 of should be able to take it" is already echoing in my mind next time my corp goes roaming in 0.0.

Do Papir
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:10:00 - [322]
 

ugh

Never seen such a strong agreement on EVE-O before..we hate this idea

Callistus
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:10:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: Jin Entres
If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.

How about:

Remote resistance boosters
Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks
Area shield
Effective super defender missiles
Remote ECM Burst that JAMS
Capital neuts
Ship tractor beams (!)
Remote damage boosters

See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.

This.

If you want carriers to be used more in a logistics role, then boost their logistics capabilities. How nerfing their offensive capabilities will make them more used in a support role is beyond me.

UGWidowmaker
Caldari
freelancers inc
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:10:00 - [324]
 

why nerf something that works just fine!! yes ofc people whine they die... and they should die if they meet a mom unprepaired. a ship to 25 bill plus the same in fitting should be killing sryff..

nerf it like this and i want my cap skill refunded...

Vinchester
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:10:00 - [325]
 

stupid idea tbvfh

KhaniKirai
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:11:00 - [326]
 

Got the feeling, they just want to put a new name on the carriers:

jump freighter......


Pendri
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:12:00 - [327]
 

Ok, I just started to train for a carrier.

Guess I will be training those social skills to lvl 15 now.

P.S. Zulu dude I think the guys from Quality Assurance miss you, maybe you go back to them again, yes? Evil or Very Mad

Vinchester
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:12:00 - [328]
 

Originally by: Callistus
Originally by: Jin Entres
If you want carriers' and motherships' role to be more support oriented, perhaps you should give them some incentives.

How about:

Remote resistance boosters
Passive (titanesque) gang bonuses to gang members on grid / big bonuses to ganglinks
Area shield
Effective super defender missiles
Remote ECM Burst that JAMS
Capital neuts
Ship tractor beams (!)
Remote damage boosters

See? It's not that hard. The weak remote repairing with crippled mechanics we have now is nowhere near sufficient to justify the use of carriers and motherships on the battlefield for support purposes only. Nerf fighters and you nerf their usefulness completely. You have to substitute it with some real functions.

This.

If you want carriers to be used more in a logistics role, then boost their logistics capabilities. How nerfing their offensive capabilities will make them more used in a support role is beyond me.



Ship tractor beam lmao :D yes please!!

Mechanical Death
NixCraft
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:12:00 - [329]
 

Edited by: Mechanical Death on 21/10/2007 14:12:41
This idea is ****ing stupid. CCP fails again.


Karbowiak
Sniggerdly
Posted - 2007.10.21 14:12:00 - [330]
 

Edited by: Karbowiak on 21/10/2007 14:16:59
Oh, this time of the year again.

Laughing TomB: LETS NERF SOMETHING
Cool Zulupark: How about nerfing carriers and motherships and making them totally useless
Laughing TomB: GREAT IDEA! AND BECAUSE OF IT, PEOPLE WILL LEAVE THE GAME - AND SO WE CAN SAY WE FIXED THE LAG!!
Cool Zulupark: Iknow iknow, im very smart!
Laughing TomB: **** YAH! YOU RULE MAN!

----

Yes, its a very good idea giving moms and carriers a limited ability to field fighters and be used offensive, very clever idea indeed and i back you all up 500%..

Or.. Rolling Eyes

1. Carriers and Motherships are fine as they are now - nothing needs to be changed or anything, hell even the lag is fine
2. If you really intend to change the way carriers and moms work, then coolio. Atleast give them something in return like. make the Thanatos 5% bonus to fighters turn into a 5% bonus to tracking - and give all carriers another bonus pr. carrier level that is, 25% bonus to damage of Fighter Drones, Bomber Drones and Interceptor Drones.
3. Bomber Drones? Interceptor Drones? (yea yea i had to come up with some names ^^) what are they?.

- Bomber Drones: Specifically made to take out big ships like capitals with its very high damage weapon systems - it has "ass" tracking so it wont hit for "****" on anything smaller than a capital.
- Interceptor Drones: Made specifically to take out smaller ships, they have superior tracking and easily does 5KM/s to catch up to even the fastest interceptors and/or hacs
- Fighter Drones: if you going through with this nerf, Fighters needs a change aswell to say the least. Give fighters a better tracking, let them keep the damage they have now (tho, add the 25% bonus to dmg. pr. carrier level) and give them the capability to change between weapon systems. like Capital weapons and Battleship weapons - ofcourse Fighters should be a all-purpose weapon for the carrier, but it should be "ass" compared to the Bomber and Interceptor drones - naturally..

4. If you read this - please type something in return, a note stating your resignation or a note stating that you will stop this useless nerf will do fine..

Did i say this is the worst idea ever?.. anyway..

Comedy, whine, idea, whine.. think i got it all covered..
//edit for spelling errors and some other stuff.. didn't get it all covered afterall :D


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (110)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only