open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Live Dev Blog - Trinity, is it holy?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:59:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Messingaround

However, with the same number of slots available to you, an armor tank or passive shield is ALWAYS more desirable in PvP than an active shield tank (Unless you are flying a capital ship, which are about the only ships that can both live and still do their job with a full active shield tank fitted). This is because of the simple fact that in PvP, cap is life.


Active armor tanks are terribly inefficient at any type of gang pvp with decent numbers. Shield tanks are much more closely so, while sinlg armor repair mods are more cap efficient, under heavy DPS cap efficiency is nearly irrelevent on your tank, all you care about is

1. Boost amount/cycle time
2. Effective Hit Points that need to be chewed through in order t damage the main ship

Active shield tanks have both these advantages, with fewer slots they boost much harder than repair tanks. As well, since they boost on shields, the opponent has to kill their armor while they are boosting. This gives them an extra hit point buffer with which to boost.

Passive shield tanks are also good, and still allow for scramblers and sometimes even webs to achieve a comparable tank on other ships. Good examples are a passive tanked siege raven, and a passive tanked tackle drake. You may not believe me, but these ships put out competitive amounts of hit points and DPS without sacrificing scrambers[or webs for the drake].

Quote:

-Ships always have less midslots than lowslots when compared across the races. For example, prior to the introduction of the Golem, no Caldari battleship had more than 6 midslots, while there were two Amarr battleships with 8 lowslots


The scorpion has 8 med slots as well.

Quote:

-Cap and resistances: armor tanks have great passive resistance modules. That's one of the reasons why EANMs will always be more popular than single active hardeners: because they use no cap. Shield tanks have no really useful passive modules, requiring you to pump yet more cap into sustaining the resistances for an already cap unstable system.


The cap use on invuln fields is negligable, and the benefit they provide, 30% boost with no skills rather than a 25% boost with 4 rank 3 skills placed at 5, is rather large.

Quote:

-"All The Small Things": Damage controls do slightly more for armor tanks than for shield tanks; power diagnostics do slightly more for passive shield tanks than for active ones; and so on.

Damage controls, in providing a larger buffer for which the enemy has to eat through on armor while the shield tank is boosting, provide a greater benefit to active shield tankers than passive shield tankers or active armor tankers or passive armor tankers.

Quote:

-Shield tanks have the advantage of generating more hp/sec than armor tanks. However, by also consuming more cap/sec, this is rendered irrelevant because you cannot sustain it.

Sustainability only matters for your tank when you are mission running or ratting. Otherwise its about out-lasting the other guy.

Treelox
Posted - 2007.12.18 20:59:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: clockedu
its funny how awkward it sounded hehe Razz


thats part of the reason why I was hoping for a written transcript to be published.

Evengard
Minmatar
Solar Dragons
SOLAR FLEET
Posted - 2007.12.18 21:41:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Drash Kammatarr
Has the dictor nerf been addressed in LDB?
Didn't have time yet to listen to it all.




Yeah, there was...

Quote:

Bla bla bla... Interdictors were doing too fast (with proper fitting)... And they can drop bubble and trap entire fleet... They're role was just to drop bubbles...


This is from me: ... drop bubble, get bumped by it to almost 0 speed and die...
I'm sorry, but is Interceptor going 18km\s is not too fast??

Now half of the dictors lost a role of anty-support. With AC \ blaster \ rockets, they have almost 0 chances hitting Inty doing 15km\s on 15-20km orbit.
And with lonk range weapons, even worst. You mostly unable to fit full rack of long range + tank. And then you go, weapons still cannot edal damage. They just don't have enough tracking to hit target.

Quote:

And even with specialized webbing ship they just can flow out on remaining speed...



C'mon! If i see a rapier \ huginn, i stay 70-90km from him, because with proper fitting it can web me. EW (non-jamming \ damping) that covers 150-200 killomiter diameter! And they say that my 40km diameter sphere is alot??

MTX PT
New European Regiment
R.U.R.
Posted - 2007.12.19 00:32:00 - [34]
 

Nice to hear about boost patch Very Happy.

How can be possible change(NERF) some modules and don't check dedicated ships that need them as primary module to do their role?

Like damps and gallente recons.

Lili Lu
Posted - 2007.12.19 01:14:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Lili Lu on 19/12/2007 01:18:11
Well how disappointing. They still don't get it with amarr. It's the damn lasers fitting and cap use.

Minor tweaks "on certain ships that lag behind" - ok (some major change would have been exciting though). But please, revise downward the beam fitting and cap use. That is the big issue. Try fitting and using a mwd on an amarr ship while fitting and using beam lasers. It is very difficult and sometimes impossible fittingwise, and cap out city if you are able to squeeze those mods on the same ship.

IMO lasers do not need increased damage or some other damage type. It would be nice to adjust the em/therm ratio a little more toward therm while still keeping a majority em. And, I can live with the cap use "bonus" on the ships. However only now that all my skills are 4 or 5. So the above suggested change to lasers might have made me more viable (or possible) when i was flying with lesser skills.

Do you not know that it is a common practice for many amarr pilots give up on lasers on some ships and put projectiles on instead? That has to be fixed. Reducing fitting and cap use, and increasing therm damage, on lasers might be enough.

Yeah, and give the amarr and gallente recons some love. They got majorly ****ed with recent changes to certain modules that were really causing problems on other ships.

Jameroz
Echoes of Space
Posted - 2007.12.19 01:36:00 - [36]
 

Finished writing the transcript for this live dev blog.

Treelox
Posted - 2007.12.19 02:24:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Jameroz
Finished writing the transcript for this live dev blog.


I love you long time

Trind2222
Amarr
The Red Ring
Posted - 2007.12.19 02:34:00 - [38]
 

ccp saying a they are plaing to boost some amarr ship.
But this will not brig them all in line? To do that they have reduce fitting requirements and
lower cap use on guns.
My question is will ccp lower fitting req and cap use on guns or will they stay as they are to day?


Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2007.12.19 03:37:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Matthew

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
and then there is the meta1 which is worse then the basic tech 1 because it refines for crap


The whole point with named modules is that they are just that, named modules. They're not supposed to be a mineral drops in module form. Meta1 equals or exceeds the performance of the base T1 item in every situation, therefore the value of the meta1 items as items themselves should always equal or exceed their T1 counterparts. As the T1 modules have a price floor at their refine value, the value of meta1 modules should always equal or exceed the T1 refine value, regardless of the refine value of the meta1 itself.


except the lower meta modules don't surpass the base t1 item because they don't refine for anything (comparably) and the higher meta items are widely available and thus cost about the same as the base t1. or the tech 2 variant has a low skill requirement and thus the meta market its suppressed for that item.

for example:
425mm 'scout' I acceleration cannon sells for 700k (meta 2)
425mm railgun I sells for just over 1 mil
(meta 1 500k, meta 4 12 mill, and tech 2 3.2 mil.)

why? 425mm railguns drop a lot in missions. this happens to be a case where t2 requires lots of skills so the higher meta ends up costing a lot. but meta 1 and meta 2 are common enough that their costs are less then tech 1, which refines quite nicely.

I'm not going to say if this is a good or a bad thing i am just going to say it how it is.

now try to sell me a carbide railgun?

Iceyblack
Caldari
UK Corp
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2007.12.19 04:05:00 - [40]
 

The amount of people are upset over the torps change range. This is really dumb. Also as a 2004 player. I have seen some major changes but this is the most silly change ever !

If you go up against another ship or even a carrier ya got to be like under 16km to fire with tech 1 gear. This is really really silly concept when you think about it.

I mean come on why dont you nerf the gallente range when they can at least reach up to 200km plus with tech 2 gear. You wont because you know a number of people also use that race as well. Then people will just drop and leave the game.

Also with tech 1 gear on a mega, plus with range extenders they can at least hit 120km away from the ship. On my skills I got level 5 torps, then followed by level 2 torps specialisation.

I used to always hit at least 60km away, On each torps I get around 380 damage a hit depending on the npc. If you was in a mega and tech 1 gear fitted you are able to be getting hits of at least 1000 damage.

I mean this is not right on the concept from point of views on ships and sizes to be honest.

So please CCP reply to that one!

Thanks very much and reading my post

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2007.12.19 05:48:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Iceyblack
The amount of people are upset over the torps change range. This is really dumb. Also as a 2004 player. I have seen some major changes but this is the most silly change ever !

If you go up against another ship or even a carrier ya got to be like under 16km to fire with tech 1 gear. This is really really silly concept when you think about it.

I mean come on why dont you nerf the gallente range when they can at least reach up to 200km plus with tech 2 gear. You wont because you know a number of people also use that race as well. Then people will just drop and leave the game.

Also with tech 1 gear on a mega, plus with range extenders they can at least hit 120km away from the ship. On my skills I got level 5 torps, then followed by level 2 torps specialisation.

I used to always hit at least 60km away, On each torps I get around 380 damage a hit depending on the npc. If you was in a mega and tech 1 gear fitted you are able to be getting hits of at least 1000 damage.

I mean this is not right on the concept from point of views on ships and sizes to be honest.

So please CCP reply to that one!

Thanks very much and reading my post


Laughing why the hell did ccp give caldari a good close range ship!!!!

hell the new torps shoot farther then the gallente blasters, or are you hitting for 1000 with a railgun?!

oh yea and you can hit at 200km with cruise.

hmmmm?

rails ~= cruise
blasers ~= torps

max skilled torps went over 100km easily before the patch. and only 380? with level 5 torps i think you do about 700-800 damage to a perfect target (0 resist, not moving, sig radius >= explosion radius) please tell me this magical 1000 damage hit, 60km t1 mega fitting. (fitting artys or tachs?!)

the change is actually perfectly right with the concept of short range high damage, high range low damage, which is exactly how every other gun/missile works.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.19 06:48:00 - [42]
 

They got the range right, they got the damage wrong. Kinda obsoletes amarran battleships as small gang damage dealers since they dont have damage problems against armor tanks or shield tanks.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2007.12.19 07:07:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
They got the range right, they got the damage wrong. Kinda obsoletes amarran battleships as small gang damage dealers since they dont have damage problems against armor tanks or shield tanks.


BOOST PATCH!!!!!

Rolling Eyes keeping my expectations low Laughing

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2007.12.19 08:49:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Goumindong

Actually information warfare gang links are much stronger than the more generally used types, except for maybe skirmish.


We've talked about this before, and I'm still not convinced -- especially now that the infowar gang links were actually nerfed (you have to either boost ECM or damps, not both). The effects, while nice in some situations, are quite cornercase and require you to fly a ship doing only that boosting (instead of, for example, flying a Rook yourself). With that ship (Eos) now imho quite weak and not providing any other useful function, that's not very tempting.

Of course, infowar links and the Eos are very interlinked. A small boost to either can make the whole a lot more attractive. All I'm saying is that at the moment, flying a ganglinked Eos isn't very tempting, compared to all the other options I have. And no, it's not because of the "support role" effect, I do a lot of flying in support-type ships. It's just a matter of comparative effectiveness.

But ok, we don't need to continue this discussion here, was just airing my personal "please look at these" points (and you put forth yours). I see what you're saying, even if I don't 100% agree.

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.12.19 15:10:00 - [45]
 

Quote:
Zulupark Eos Basically a ship that was supposed to give out command bonuses and tank really well turned out to be a ship that just killed everything. That's not really intended role. When compared to other command ships of it's tier it was wastly wastly overpowered. We think that we brought it more inline now. So basically it's doing similar amounts of damage than the other races' and by changing medium slot to low slot we increased the tanking. If there are still some issues with Eos please post to the forums. We read them amazingly enough and we check it out.


The Eos nerf has the same problems as the pilgrim/curse nerf. All of them were kinda pointless in gangs but uber solo ships as opposed to their direct counterparts, you break their solo ability to "balance" them but the ships remain aweful in gangs compared to their counterparts (I'm sorry but being able of neuting a battleships cap which takes quite a few cycles as opposed to an ew that instantly puts them out of combat or web/scramble from insane range isn't really wanted, nor are information warfare gang links any good compared to the others).

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.12.21 07:56:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Damned Force on 21/12/2007 07:57:33
This devblog was about a very big NOTHING............

We would look on carriers, we would look on amarr, we would look on AF's, we would look on speed, we would, we would, we would.....

They said nothing, they have no clue what they would do to which ship and modules and when they would do....

The damn carrier nerf was very fast implemented, because you failed to design a usefull jumpfrighter and u was needed somehow to make them usefull.....

AF's and some Amarr ships sux badly alreday years ago, but nothing happend till yet, just promises like now. Pilgrim is sux(+1 amarr) but nothing happend.

Dictors was speednerfed, because it was "overpowered" to bubble up and zoom out. Now Bubble up and pop, because no defense, no speed, no tank(or pop and no bubble).

Some ships are still too fast, but nothing is done(for example the Vaga, yes this ship should go fast, but not so fast, and it do not much damage on this speed, but have still 8k shield with good res, if a ship is speedtanked, should not have a good other tank too).....

Drone bandwith was introduced, drone shield regen was nerfed, but the most ships have the same dronebay, like the rokh with 50m3, that a 1 volley pop up, nothing else.....

A lot of haf implementations and idiotic agruments(like "was not ment so") to cover that u wanted to make some new stuff, to get new players, and because this nerfed stuffs that other(older) players used. U wanted this fast and dont ended the changes, just made so halfchanges. And even now u have no clue what to do and how(at least nothing said in devblog).

Fail......Evil or Very Mad

kunokneul
FroZen SoulS
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.12.21 12:09:00 - [47]
 

I woudn't call it the same way the guy before me did it. I know how hard it is to program and I think I know how hard it is to "balance" a game of this size. There are old player, they wan't to be better, just because they have higher skills, there are beginners, they wan't to catch up and so on...

But I have to admit, I'm a little disapointed by this dev blog. The moderator was good, he asked all the importend questions. But everytime the dev's where asked "Why did you do this?" there is a somehow "weak" reaction from the dev's.

It sound's like they didn't really discuss all the changes and therefore have trouble to explain it. I mean after weaks and month of internal discussions these answers shoudt come out with facts: "We did it because: 1. ..., 2. ..., 3. ... ."

o/

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.12.21 12:58:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: kunokneul
I woudn't call it the same way the guy before me did it. I know how hard it is to program and I think I know how hard it is to "balance" a game of this size. There are old player, they wan't to be better, just because they have higher skills, there are beginners, they wan't to catch up and so on...

But I have to admit, I'm a little disapointed by this dev blog. The moderator was good, he asked all the importend questions. But everytime the dev's where asked "Why did you do this?" there is a somehow "weak" reaction from the dev's.

It sound's like they didn't really discuss all the changes and therefore have trouble to explain it. I mean after weaks and month of internal discussions these answers shoudt come out with facts: "We did it because: 1. ..., 2. ..., 3. ... ."

o/


Im a programmer too, so i know too how hard is to make a good program.
About balance: yes is hard or better said unpossible to make 100% balance.

What i was talking about, that the dev team worked not on balance, but worked on changes which make his new ships useful, which ships was introduced to get new customers. And the ships which are not balanced are still the same. So there was a problem the priority.. they simply worked on wrong things, and thats why they cant give good arguments why they did this things.

And thats why if the moderator asked when this balances would implemented they was not able to give any good answer either.
For example they agreed amarr need some love, and that they would balance the amarr fleet, but they was not able to say which way, and in what timerange.... from this u can see they have no clue what to do in this case, because had low priority(they not even discused this issue). The same like AF's. And if they had invest just a little time to look into this problems they had at least idee's which way the balance can be done.
The "looking" on this problems since years ago and nothing happend....

Thats what i said before, and since Trinity was mentioned first time, no dev was able to give any post or devblog or anything to proof that im wrong....

They do everything for the new players. And if this go for on the end a new player in a newbie ship would able to destroy u in an MS....(If they would have enough players after such changes.)

Devs should notice that maybe they get lot of new subscriptions, but from this just some would stay in the game, so u should care about older players. They invested lot of money into your game and they 99% like this game like me, but is sux that everything is made for new players...

MTX PT
New European Regiment
R.U.R.
Posted - 2007.12.21 22:43:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: MTX PT on 21/12/2007 22:45:26
It seems like they nerf based on forum whines, carried out some changes regardless negative feedback and ignore pvpers.

CCP invested too much in graphics, it's important and will bring new players, but and the gameplay? And problems like Low sec?
They really should play the game, test affected ships by the nerfs, make some PVP and see if is not boring to do a lot of micromanagement.
I am not saying that this patch it's just bad things, but simply do not adds any fun and a lot of things still needed to be fixed and others are broken now.


Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2007.12.22 05:47:00 - [50]
 

Was a pretty nice live dev blog, though while I hate to sound like I'm being overly critical, I felt that you guys didn't really provide adequate justification for the changes. I'm not saying that I disagree with most of the changes in trinity, because I don't, it's just that, if I was your average guy playing EVE, I would think that you hadn't really justified some of the changes very thoroughly. For instance, with carrier logistics, you did mention the capital-modules-on-a-frigate-in-the-carrier-ship-bay sploit, but you didn't really finish that thought. At least, I don't think you did. I've had a few glasses of wine now so don't take that too hard, anyway, you guys do some good work and I'm real proud.

Now for me, there are only a couple things that need a little work in EVE. Well, only two MAJOR things that need work, and also some other minor things. Here's a couple things put into bite-sized morsels:

Pilgrim/Curse: If you want to give the pilgrim more range, change the Covert Ops Cloak CPU bonus gained from Recon Ships to a NOS/Neut range bonus, though not as strong as the one on the Curse, and then give all the Force Recons a 99% CPU need reduction for Covops Cloaks as a role bonus. Then do the same sort of thing to the other races' Force Recons; give the Arazu a cap use bonus to damps, and give the rapier and falcon relatively useless/minor bonuses, since they're okay. Now the Pilgrim has range, the Arazu is unique and a pretty nice damp/tackling platform, and the Falcon and Rapier are still pretty good.

Speed: I agree that the combination of Overdrives, Nanos, Istabs, and especially Snakes, Polycarbs, and gang bonuses make ships a bit too fast. There is a thread going around the game development forum with a good solution to webs, and I think that it's on the right track and worth considering in conjunction with just some good ol' fashioned nerfs.

Carriers: I've been thinking about writing a little bit about carriers some time, not a really huge thing (like you-know-what-I-mean), but overall I am terribly proud that the balance team is brave enough to tackle this issue.

Amarr: Among other things, try flying the Omen and the Maller some time, try fighting some actual people. This should give you a little insight I think. These two ships are without a doubt the two worst ships in the entire game, relative to the rest of their class at least, and really...they're just awful. Start there and work your way up.

Titans: So far the changes made so far have made a huge difference, and the game is much more fun than it has been for a very long time. Despite that, you still have some work to do, both buffing and nerfing. Now me, I'm not against giving the titan a little help here and there. The clone vat bay, for instance, is a little bit "meh" and could use a little help, since it's sort of convoluted. I've heard ideas like giving it little factory slots so you can make stuff, and that's fine with me, that's fun and balanced. Only thing I urge you against is this: do not buff the doomsday. Matter of fact, you should nerf the doomsday even more. How the hell, I ask you, do you confront four or five titans in a cynojammed system? You ain't gonna jump capships in there to deal with them. You can't tank that many doomsdays with a battleship, I'll tell you. Truth be told, I have never, not once, had fun when dealing with a titan. Not a single time. And I've dodged my share of doomsdays, mind you. You can buff titans, sure, definitely, but give them something fun and interesting, not a stupid mega-sized smartbomb, because that's just awful and goes against everything that makes this game amazing. For balance's sake, you really have to do something about doomsdays, because they're still the tools of people who want to make the game boring for everyone.

in summation: drun;k post, but i think i made some good points. happy chanukah. YARRRR!!

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.22 08:41:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious

Pilgrim/Curse: If you want to give the pilgrim more range, change the Covert Ops Cloak CPU bonus gained from Recon Ships to a NOS/Neut range bonus, though not as strong as the one on the Curse, and then give all the Force Recons a 99% CPU need reduction for Covops Cloaks as a role bonus. Then do the same sort of thing to the other races' Force Recons; give the Arazu a cap use bonus to damps, and give the rapier and falcon relatively useless/minor bonuses, since they're okay. Now the Pilgrim has range, the Arazu is unique and a pretty nice damp/tackling platform, and the Falcon and Rapier are still pretty good.


Or, they could do what they did with all the other recons and instead of getting rid of the ewar range bonus get rid of the damage bonus.

Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative.
Posted - 2007.12.22 11:02:00 - [52]
 

I just cant respect the post of a pilot who doesnt have any corp or alliance tag. Even newb corp would help my opinion of the person.

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.12.22 13:54:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
I just cant respect the post of a pilot who doesnt have any corp or alliance tag. Even newb corp would help my opinion of the person.


I donno what is the difference if u see the corp and alliance or not. The opinion is the same. Not everyone want to join to player corps and alliances and be limited what and when can do...

Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2007.12.26 14:00:00 - [54]
 

Finally got around to listen to that dev blog. And I wish I hadn't. Laughing

Good to know that e. g. a Raven can spare one mid slot for a scrambler. I really do believe that will do much good on a ship that does less than 150 m/s and has no webifier.

Or that torpedo damage is balanced by high fitting requirements... Interestingly enough it does not work that way with every other short range weapon in the game.

Oh, and while we are at it, can we at least have 2 different siege launchers (after all, torpedoes are now "in line" with other short range weapon systems - whatever that's supposed to mean) like the 2 pulse lasers the Amarr have? I wouldn't dare to ask for the 3 types of short range weapons the Gallente or Minmatar have...

Let's not forget the Eos issue either, that ship is supposed to have a good tank and give gang bonuses. I can think of a couple of T1 battlecruisers that already fit that bill.

On the whole you would do good to stop talking about future vapour patches and features and more about the game as it is now.

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2008.01.05 17:19:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Megan Maynard on 05/01/2008 17:21:23
Ok I think ALL of eve is in need of some clarification on the speed issue.......

Were you talking about interdictors going too fast or ships in general? It sounds like ships in general at first but then you go on and talk about interdictors exclusively.

I heard something about "looking" at stacking speed mods. Aren't there stacking penalty's all ready?

Is the "BOOST PATCH YAAHH!" going to include any speed changes? And to what ships?

The forums are getting crazy and I think we deserve some sort of word from CCP here. Speed is a huge part of the game and many are worried or excited about it getting changed.

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.01.11 09:59:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
Edited by: Megan Maynard on 05/01/2008 17:21:23
Ok I think ALL of eve is in need of some clarification on the speed issue.......

Were you talking about interdictors going too fast or ships in general? It sounds like ships in general at first but then you go on and talk about interdictors exclusively.

I heard something about "looking" at stacking speed mods. Aren't there stacking penalty's all ready?

Is the "BOOST PATCH YAAHH!" going to include any speed changes? And to what ships?

The forums are getting crazy and I think we deserve some sort of word from CCP here. Speed is a huge part of the game and many are worried or excited about it getting changed.


Pls don't dream......
Devs don't give info, because there is nothing about they could. They have no clue how to fix this and other probs :)
And pls let them do they very very important work without any interrupt. They need to make the 5th alliance turney, which is fun for some hundred peoples in alliances and sux for the others........
PS.: I like very how devs fail to design a good ship in last time :)


Pages: 1 [2]

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