DUST Search - Remove Adv and Pro AV

Soraya Xel wrote:

Rusty Shallows wrote:

Severance Pay wrote:

Soraya Xel wrote:

Rusty Shallows wrote:

If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank.

What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle.

^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate.

Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing.

This is how I'd spec it out:

- Right now, HAVs are too powerful for solo players.
- Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players.

So, first, HAVs:

Heavy Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Team-based tool for breaking enemy lines and clearing defenses. Effectiveness scales with number of people in it.

- Same durability as current HAVs.
- Drivers seat is the front gun, with the forward firing arc.
- Gunners seat is the main turret.
- Engineers seat is the top small turret with the full firing arc.

- HAVs with one driver can still fire forward turret while driving, however the inability to fire behind them in that seat allows AV to flank, so it is easier to destroy. Note that the HAV driver can still switch to the gunner's seat, or switch to the engineer's seat to activate modules. Modules will run even if after you switch back to the other seats. When balanced correctly, a single dedicated AV should be able to kill it.
- HAVs with two people can have someone driving while another person switches between the main gun and modules seats. This means much more ability to fire while moving, aim behind, and in general, be a lot more effective at doing things. Which should make it harder to kill. When balanced correctly, it'll probably take two dedicated AV to kill it.
- HAVs with three people can use all features simultaneously. This three-man fire team, especially if working over voice comms, provides a near unstoppable force on the battle field. When balanced correctly, it'll take three or more dedicated AV to kill it.

However, the solo vehicle users do need a job. LAVs are transports, they really aren't able to fill the role, so it's time to pull out something we haven't heard of since the last fanfest: MAVs.

Medium Attack Vehicles
Design goal: Single player vehicle brawlers designed to provide heavy firepower for a price.

- Same durability as previous generation of HAVs.
- One person small tank.

- MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill, depending on skills and hull grade.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jason Pearson 3839	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:06:00 - [1] - Quote Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Tectonic Fusion 961	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:09:00 - [2] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Michael Epic The Neutral Zone 204	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:09:00 - [3] - Quote Is that a recipe for never ever being able to stomp militia tankamania?
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 2428	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:10:00 - [4] - Quote Remove blaster turrets, balance Im not drunk, the planet just happens to be especially wobbly today.
Jason Pearson 3840	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:11:00 - [5] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank? King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Rusty Shallows 753	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:34:00 - [6] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank? If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. Although it's hard to completely dismiss it. With 1.7 it shows the Devs are still capable of abandoning all logic and reason. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 448	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:38:00 - [7] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Hardly as swarms are rather useless now and totally outclassed by RE's. To OP definitely yes all this vehicle vs AV mess is IMHO mostly related to this nonsense of having AV Proto weaponry while only having std Vehicles (ok in chromosome we had additionally adv Vehicles)
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9862	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:45:00 - [8] - Quote Put two heavies on either side of a seesaw Balance Assault Dropship Montage Incubus Pilot, AV Specialist, Fat Scout DUST addict
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1040	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:46:00 - [9] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Jason Pearson 3842	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:46:00 - [10] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank? If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. Although it's hard to completely dismiss it. With 1.7 it shows the Devs are still capable of abandoning all logic and reason. You say that, but 1.7 brought good ideas and changes, it is just a pain to balance because standard is ****, however I can walk all over non hardened vehicles with Proto Swarms or a Proto Forge. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar

Jason Pearson 3842	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:48:00 - [11] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. I better get my SP back if a Dev, in one of their fits of bad decisions, decides this is the way to go. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Severance Pay Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic 999	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:49:00 - [12] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother
Eltra Ardell Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 282	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:51:00 - [13] - Quote ITT: Bad Ideas
Jason Pearson 3845	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:52:00 - [14] - Quote Eltra Ardell wrote: ITT: Bad Ideas Enlighten us with your glorious wisdom. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 1940	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:52:00 - [15] - Quote Buff swarms to original dmg, lose one missile per tier(3,4,5) and add one extra round to the mag(4 up from 3 but still not as good as the old 5) "I do agree with you there though. shudders" -Arkena Wyrnspire
Eltra Ardell Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 282	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:53:00 - [16] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Eltra Ardell wrote: ITT: Bad Ideas Enlighten us with your glorious wisdom. I just did.
Rusty Shallows 754	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:55:00 - [17] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Proto AV needed to kill standard tanks Sir, how does one kill a proto tank? If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. Although it's hard to completely dismiss it. With 1.7 it shows the Devs are still capable of abandoning all logic and reason. You say that, but 1.7 brought good ideas and changes, it is just a pain to balance because standard is ****, however I can walk all over non hardened vehicles with Proto Swarms or a Proto Forge. 1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Jason Pearson 3845	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:58:00 - [18] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: 1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons. I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Rusty Shallows 754	Posted - 2014.01.10 20:59:00 - [19] - Quote Severance Pay wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Jason Pearson 3846	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:01:00 - [20] - Quote Battlefield lets you run solo in a tank.. And I seem to kill a lot more things in it than in DUST. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar

Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1174	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:02:00 - [21] - Quote +1 much easier to balance equal tiers against each other you don't want Proto AV stomping STD tanks the only available tanks into dust yet you don't want it entirely useless when PRO tanks come out put everything into the game and it is easier to balance. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1174	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:05:00 - [22] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Severance Pay wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing. A. doesn't go along with lore B. I have 5+ million sp into turrets a great deal of it into large turrets your telling me I now can't use what I invested like 3-4 months of grinding into. I agree with team work be in important but via the form of LLAV's repping or gunners etc. not by ruining my gameplay experience. Caldari Tanker/Minmatar Assault Forum warrior lvl 1
Rusty Shallows 754	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:05:00 - [23] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: 1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons. I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking. The new game motto is: "If you're not in a HAV then this isn't the game for you." The Tank514 tags in signatures is an example of this mess. Totally agree the concepts for 1.7 were great. They were just deployed in the worst way possible and need major fixes. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Jason Pearson 3847	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:09:00 - [24] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: 1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons. I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking. The new game motto is: "If you're not in a HAV then this isn't the game for you." The Tank514 tags in signatures is an example of this mess. Totally agree the concepts for 1.7 were great. They were just deployed in the worst way possible and need major fixes. We had AR514 in our sigs for a long time, it's still AR514 ;) More often than not, I'm on foot now either with my RR or my forge stomping things, tanks win when spammed in ambush and when using teamwork to kill, solo they're not great. Problem is when you're up against 5 tanks and you're the only AVer, you're going to lose. Watching Morte go up against several tanks in a 3man crew with swarms and two breach forge guns is terrifying, every tank on the field is a burning wreck. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1041	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:12:00 - [25] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Severance Pay wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing. This is how I'd spec it out: - Right now, HAVs are too powerful for solo players. - Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players. So, first, HAVs: Heavy Attack Vehicles Design goal: Team-based tool for breaking enemy lines and clearing defenses. Effectiveness scales with number of people in it. - Same durability as current HAVs. - Drivers seat is the front gun, with the forward firing arc. - Gunners seat is the main turret. - Engineers seat is the top small turret with the full firing arc. - HAVs with one driver can still fire forward turret while driving, however the inability to fire behind them in that seat allows AV to flank, so it is easier to destroy. Note that the HAV driver can still switch to the gunner's seat, or switch to the engineer's seat to activate modules. Modules will run even if after you switch back to the other seats. When balanced correctly, a single dedicated AV should be able to kill it. - HAVs with two people can have someone driving while another person switches between the main gun and modules seats. This means much more ability to fire while moving, aim behind, and in general, be a lot more effective at doing things. Which should make it harder to kill. When balanced correctly, it'll probably take two dedicated AV to kill it. - HAVs with three people can use all features simultaneously. This three-man fire team, especially if working over voice comms, provides a near unstoppable force on the battle field. When balanced correctly, it'll take three or more dedicated AV to kill it. However, the solo vehicle users do need a job. LAVs are transports, they really aren't able to fill the role, so it's time to pull out something we haven't heard of since the last fanfest: MAVs. Medium Attack Vehicles Design goal: Single player vehicle brawlers designed to provide heavy firepower for a price. - Same durability as previous generation of HAVs. - One person small tank. - MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill, depending on skills and hull grade. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1041	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:14:00 - [26] - Quote Depending on balance, I'd actually go for buffing the HAV a bit more, if it was designed to operate like the manner of my above post. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Jason Pearson 3847	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:15:00 - [27] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Severance Pay wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: If the Devs learned anything from Chrome (or CCP from Eve Online) then we won't be seeing any super HAVs. Odds are new HAVs will just have different intended uses. It is unlikely they will intentionally putting out a new Win-Button with more DPS and tank. What they need to do, is force HAVs to operate as three-person vehicles (or particularly, be particularly more effective as a three-person vehicle), and then introduce MAVs as a more balanced solo slaying vehicle. ^ this. Who ever heard of a Tank that can be operated by a single person? If it is gonna take 3 people to kill a tank, it better damn will require 3 people to operate. Harsh. Although having a Driver a Large Turret Gunner would be fair for having that much of a game advantage. A more civilized option than nerfing. This is how I'd spec it out: - Right now, HAVs are too powerful for solo players. - Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players. So, first, HAVs: Heavy Attack Vehicles Design goal: Team-based tool for breaking enemy lines and clearing defenses. Effectiveness scales with number of people in it. - Same durability as current HAVs. - Drivers seat is the front gun, with the forward firing arc. - Gunners seat is the main turret. - Engineers seat is the top small turret with the full firing arc. - HAVs with one driver can still fire forward turret while driving, however the inability to fire behind them in that seat allows AV to flank, so it is easier to destroy. Note that the HAV driver can still switch to the gunner's seat, or switch to the engineer's seat to activate modules. Modules will run even if after you switch back to the other seats. When balanced correctly, a single dedicated AV should be able to kill it. - HAVs with two people can have someone driving while another person switches between the main gun and modules seats. This means much more ability to fire while moving, aim behind, and in general, be a lot more effective at doing things. Which should make it harder to kill. When balanced correctly, it'll probably take two dedicated AV to kill it. - HAVs with three people can use all features simultaneously. This three-man fire team, especially if working over voice comms, provides a near unstoppable force on the battle field. When balanced correctly, it'll take three or more dedicated AV to kill it. However, the solo vehicle users do need a job. LAVs are transports, they really aren't able to fill the role, so it's time to pull out something we haven't heard of since the last fanfest: MAVs. Medium Attack Vehicles Design goal: Single player vehicle brawlers designed to provide heavy firepower for a price. - Same durability as previous generation of HAVs. - One person small tank. - MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill, depending on skills and hull grade. You lost me at "- Last build, HAVs were about right for solo players." and then I managed to see "- MAVs should take between 1 and 2 dedicated AV to kill" and then I was glad I skipped the post. IT TOOK 3 ***** LAI DAI PACKED AV GRENADES TO KILL A 1.7MIL TANK, IF MAVS HAVE THE SAME SURVIVABILITY AS THAT, YOU'RE HAVING A ***** LAUGH WITH THE WHOLE "DEDICATED" AV THING. King of the Forums // Vehicle Specialist for Hire \\ Bad Mathematician You're a total git, Jason. - Kingbabar
Rusty Shallows 754	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:21:00 - [28] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: snip B. I have 5+ million sp into turrets a great deal of it into large turrets your telling me I now can't use what I invested like 3-4 months of grinding into. I agree with team work be in important but via the form of LLAV's repping or gunners etc. not by ruining my gameplay experience. And you have just zeroed in on the ONLY reason splitting up crew tasking is bad. Squading up can be hard like when posting in good chats "LSF," and no one has space. Then soon as you're squaded everyone is posting "RFx." Like some bad cosmic joke. If HAVs are going to be a single player then other players need equal options against them in their chosen gaming experience. That is not the case right as the entire game is definitively one-sided right now. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Rusty Shallows 756	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:47:00 - [29] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Rusty Shallows wrote: 1.7 isn't any better than Uprising 1.0 with regards to vehicles. The Devs just broke the game in the opposite direction. They should have only done the buffs and new weapons. I'm going to disagree, I find 1.7 much more enjoyable than previous builds, but now we've found out what works and what does not already, it's not as interesting. The waves of opportunity deal that the devs were going for could be the right thing for vehicles, but it does need tweaking. The new game motto is: "If you're not in a HAV then this isn't the game for you." The Tank514 tags in signatures is an example of this mess. Totally agree the concepts for 1.7 were great. They were just deployed in the worst way possible and need major fixes. We had AR514 in our sigs for a long time, it's still AR514 ;) snip You are killing me with nostalgia Jason. I think 1.7 is better than Chromosome which had the competing game tags AR514 and HAV514. When an infantry A-Game was squadded people using the assault suites (needle, wildcard EQ) and an Assault Rifle. Although HAV TCs back then had a steep SP threshold to get the Win-Button. Those new to the profession, lacking skillZ, or just unlucky to organizes AV we're killable. While I believe HAVs are broken now it's only a conditional thing like how FGs being able to camp hack-points is broken, not universal just situational. If the HMG hot-fix didn't happen then I would have been calling this Rifles514 & HAV514 simply because the Heavy Frames would have been nerfed completely useless. Some of the Sidearm guys however are still screwed. MCC Lounge Lizard Forums > Game Fix the game CCP
Zimander Tickle My Null-Sac 25	Posted - 2014.01.10 21:53:00 - [30] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Buff Standard AV, also remove Advanced and Proto turrets. Balance. Keep swarm damage the same, and add ADV/PROTO tanks. Balance. Remove AV TANKS SWARM Balance



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page