DUST Search - ADS delta 1.1 hotfix feedback

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

ADS delta 1.1 hotfix feedback

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1779	Posted - 2014.10.30 02:19:00 - [1] - Quote Hello CCP, The incubus feels a lot more reliable with that overheat fix. That being said, it still feels like it steel needs a bump to the bonus from 3 to 5%. That would make it feel a bit more reliable and not make it overpowered. This being said, the blaster is still less efficient than the rail or the missiles at killing infantry. Somethingnneeds to be done since blasters are supposed to be anti-infantry. So much so that they have a huge penalty againts vehicles. CCP must increase damage by 15% ( same as adv damage mod ) and reduce the spread by a significant amount since the reticule is still pretty big. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
DUST Fiend Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 14775	Posted - 2014.10.30 02:29:00 - [2] - Quote Blaster will neverbe adequate for anything as a front gun unless it gets a massive AV buff, or the ADS gets a swiveling turret camera, as opposed to the obnoxious fixed camera that they forced on us. Ten Year Plan (pâÄa¦át¢èa¦á)pâÄs+íGö+GöüGö+
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1779	Posted - 2014.10.30 02:31:00 - [3] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Blaster will neverbe adequate for anything as a front gun unless it gets a massive AV buff, or the ADS gets a swiveling turret camera, as opposed to the obnoxious fixed camera that they forced on us. As a side turret. Rails are still better by a large margin as a side turret. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2402	Posted - 2014.10.30 04:37:00 - [4] - Quote If CCP is so worried about the rail being used as an AI weapon, why don't they just nerf the damage it does against infantry? They've already shown that they can do it against vehicles, would it be so hard to just reverse this? The damage needs to be much higher on the rails, and by reducing their effectiveness on dropsuits it allows the rails to be tailored to attacking vehicles. Personally, I'd rather see a base damage buff and change the Incubus skill to a heat build-up/cooldown bonus. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Victor Moody Stahl Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 74	Posted - 2014.10.30 05:03:00 - [5] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Personally, I'd rather see a base damage buff and change the Incubus skill to a heat build-up/cooldown bonus. As a wannabe ADS pilot (mostly because I'm halfway broke for a pilot... also I'm mostly bad at flying), well... I only have one thing to say to this idea: MUCH WANT. VERY COOL. Then can shoot tank with much yes, and make tank happy dead. Most of this is due to the fact that I can't stand the KB/M controls for derpships, and so I try and do okay at flying with a DS3. /ragey moment about derpship KB/M controls Buff Logis \| Nerf Goldfish
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 280	Posted - 2014.10.30 09:17:00 - [6] - Quote If we keep raising the base damage to deal with tanks (and militia/ standard dropships since they have the same HP as a tank now), the rail turret ceases to be a small turret and starts to behave like a large rail turret. I would rather have more shots in a small amount of time, especially when it comes to dogfighting. You can do everything right in terms of air to air, height advantage, speed advantage, element of surprise, and still my proto rail turret will give any dropship enough time to stop, turn around , fire back a few rounds or ram me and simply coast back to their red line. IMO The first pass should be crippling, the second should be fatal. Instead its the first pass maybe takes down shields, the second on 1 third of his armor, the third one another third of armor, the fourth might be the killing blow, on a stationary militia dropship. Thats with a Proto rail with a laughable 9% increase in ROF. Imagine how long it takes with a grimness or gorgon dancing around trying to ram me with a hardener/armor reps. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game RUST415 182	Posted - 2014.10.30 10:59:00 - [7] - Quote Quite frankly the milliseconds of difference the skill imparts are wholly inadequate to help anyone. NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life Delta- bye bye ads, bye bye scr
DarthPlagueis TheWise 157	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:05:00 - [8] - Quote Ghaz, good to see you, hope to squad with you soon (not on this character) destiny sux

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9756	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:09:00 - [9] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: Hello CCP, The incubus feels a lot more reliable with that overheat fix. That being said, it still feels like it steel needs a bump to the bonus from 3 to 5%. That would make it feel a bit more reliable and not make it overpowered. This being said, the blaster is still less efficient than the rail or the missiles at killing infantry. Somethingnneeds to be done since blasters are supposed to be anti-infantry. So much so that they have a huge penalty againts vehicles. CCP must increase damage by 15% ( same as adv damage mod ) and reduce the spread by a significant amount since the reticule is still pretty big. Excellent. Thanks for the feedback. Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 848	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:17:00 - [10] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Excellent. Thanks for the feedback. Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? Heat fix has made the Railgun Incubus more useful, can actually shoot down dropships again. Swarms: no appreciable change. They still circle buildings. The biggest issue is that by the time you can react to a swarm volley, they are usually too close for any so of manoeuvre to make any difference. Edit: out of curiosity, have you had a chance to look at This Thread? I think there are some thoughts in there that are worth considering (but then I'm biased ) Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.


CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 9758	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:30:00 - [11] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Excellent. Thanks for the feedback. Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? Heat fix has made the Railgun Incubus more useful, can actually shoot down dropships again. Swarms: no appreciable change. They still circle buildings. The biggest issue is that by the time you can react to a swarm volley, they are usually too close for any so of manoeuvre to make any difference. Edit: out of curiosity, have you had a chance to look at This Thread? I think there are some thoughts in there that are worth considering (but then I'm biased ) Seems exaggerated, you get hit by the first, the second may be in the air but by the third you should be actively avoiding it. If the third swarm is not as maneuverable, it may be a big factor in survivability. Even just losing 1 or 2 of the missiles from the swarm into a building or hill. Now I have, and stored the link on our Crowdsourcing Trello board. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 465	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:40:00 - [12] - Quote Swarms still murder dropships and the turn radius nerf was probs just a buff to LAV's cause a dropship cant do a 90 degree turn while flying full speed. Thats just not possible with the current game physics. Small blasters are very good on LAV's and HAV's but are horrid on dropships (no stable plattform and constantly moving). They sure pack quite alot of firepower vs infantry but on the front gun on a incubus its literally useless. You simply doesnt have the precision thats needed due to the camera automatically recenter. Missiles are still much better for dropships cause of the rather large splash radius. Bright is the opposite of dark! Who would have thought of that?!
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 851	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:46:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Seems exaggerated, you get hit by the first, the second may be in the air but by the third you should be actively avoiding it. If the third swarm is not as maneuverable, it may be a big factor in survivability. Even just losing 1 or 2 of the missiles from the swarm into a building or hill. Exaggerated, not especially. 1.9 will, hopefully, fix rendering issues but prior to then it is difficult to actually see them being launched which makes evasive action extremely difficult, not to mention time consuming, which actually plays into the hands of the Swarmer. The thing with the swarm volleys is this: the first lock-on time is utterly irrelevant when the dropship is unaware (which is 98% of the time, due to the size of infantry at standard engagement range) because there is no indication of being under attack. At operation 5, you have about 1.2s between the first volley being launched and the second following it. Total time from, "Oh crap, I'm under fire" to third volley launch is around 2.5-3s. A swarm can lock the first volley and have the second volley fired by the time you get hit. The third volley is in the air and the launcher being reloaded while you react to being hit, counter the impulse effects of the hits and consider trying to manoeuvre. Swarms don't appear to slow down when they turn, unlike a dropship which means that every turn causes the Swarms to catch up even faster. What it boils down to is that flat out running to the 400m range is much simpler and vastly more likely to keep you alive - engaging a Swarmer is difficult, especially under fire and if you throw in evasive manoeuvres then your accuracy is in the toilet. (Edit: more to the point, running away gets you past the 175m lock-on range before the second clip is loaded, while staying, trying to evade and attempting to engage is likely to feed you three more volleys.) One thing that would be useful for improving feedback: how far does a swarm need to travel before it can turn? How does the swarm missile actually operate? From my perspective, it looks like it only has to travel a couple of metres before it gets to turn which, if true, makes the small turning nerfs irrelevant because a dropship has worse handling and has to slow down to attempt to outmanoeuvre them. CCP Rattati wrote: Now I have, and stored the link on our Crowdsourcing Trello board. Cool. Just trying to provide alternatives, like you asked for. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 283	Posted - 2014.10.30 11:53:00 - [14] - Quote To be honest its very difficult to gauge, i tend to fly in first person a lot, and if there is a nest of nanohives and uplinks i make a long strafing run from about 200-300 meters up, (in order to reach full speed without activating the burner) gett off two maybe three misiles before i have to pull up and depending on the map bank behind the nearest obstacle. This is too keep my speed at a maximum so that i can get in and out of swarm lock range before multiple salvos can be launched. I have seen swarms fired in the opposite direction bank around and hip my ship, and i have seen swarms spin around my ship for a second or two then explode. So far, i have not been able to scrub missiles on any map except for the city socket in grid F5/F6 and G5/G6 (couldn't find it as the central socket, but it the central socket on some domination/skirmish maps like skim juntion). I manage to lose missiles there because AV nests don't have any long range line of sight. Its very difficult to fire swarms from the highest tower, because of thier jump barriers, the smaller buildings also have thier line of sight blocked by the large tower and barriers of thier own. And the supply depot is tucked into a corner. On that map i fly at around 15-50 meters altitude inside of the city, basically through the low hanging archways. I'm not flying at 90 degree angles, but a stationary AV player is always at right angles to me. This isnt the case in any open sky maps, especially with roof top campers there are no right angles to lose them at. I doubt the turn radius is the issue, because swarm don't overshoot and then waste time turning back around. Making sharp turns kills dropship speed and then your hit. Flying at the topspeed to keep your underfire dropship out of swarm range means you're not making turns in excess of 45 degrees and even then Missiles still cut you off, moving faster than you do, and then they hit. tl;dr no real changes noticed yet. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Gabriella Grey THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 206	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:53:00 - [15] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Excellent. Thanks for the feedback. Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? Heat fix has made the Railgun Incubus more useful, can actually shoot down dropships again. Swarms: no appreciable change. They still circle buildings. The biggest issue is that by the time you can react to a swarm volley, they are usually too close for any so of manoeuvre to make any difference. Edit: out of curiosity, have you had a chance to look at This Thread? I think there are some thoughts in there that are worth considering (but then I'm biased ) Seems exaggerated, you get hit by the first, the second may be in the air but by the third you should be actively avoiding it. If the third swarm is not as maneuverable, it may be a big factor in survivability. Even just losing 1 or 2 of the missiles from the swarm into a building or hill. Now I have, and stored the link on our Crowdsourcing Trello board. I noticed the change to swarm turning. Several times I was able to loose at least a few volleys from prototype swarms. It's still not quite their yet. Some issues I noticed was swarms I had lost a while ago would suddenly come hitting my dropship. Another issue I faced was after the swarms turned their speed seems to pick back up after turning not allowing even with the afterburner active to avoid the volley. The turning radius of swarms seems to be close so I would say maybe perhaps adding anywhere from an additional 5% to 10% should have it in a great place for both sides. Now all dropships need is work on turrets! *Always Grey Skies* Leader of the Alpaca Commandos
Francois Sanchez Prima Gallicus 120	Posted - 2014.10.30 12:59:00 - [16] - Quote About small blasters, I think the main problem is the spread and the range, which are fine on ground vehicles, but on dropships they force you to get really close. You're then extremely exposed to everything, tanks, turrets, grenades and if somebody shows up with a forge gun or a swarm you're basically dead. As they're fine on ground vehicles, maybe it would be cool to change the incubus bonus to spread reduction and extra range for small blasters
Harpyja Legio DXIV 2212	Posted - 2014.10.30 13:39:00 - [17] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: If CCP is so worried about the rail being used as an AI weapon, why don't they just nerf the damage it does against infantry? They've already shown that they can do it against vehicles, would it be so hard to just reverse this? The damage needs to be much higher on the rails, and by reducing their effectiveness on dropsuits it allows the rails to be tailored to attacking vehicles. Personally, I'd rather see a base damage buff and change the Incubus skill to a heat build-up/cooldown bonus. So whatever happened to the whole idea of having small turrets for AI and large turrets for AV? People complained that the large blaster was too good at AI (personally I thought it was fine, except that it was too good at AV) so they had it nerfed. People told us to fit small turrets on our HAVs if we wanted AI. We did. And people still complained and got the small rails nerfed. Now you want to make small rails AV focused? Either keep small turrets AI focused or make each turret type have a certain focus (i.e. large and small blasters for AI). Choose one and stick with it, and don't get butt hurt when people adapt to changes (not talking to you Vulpes, just people in general). "By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1782	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:18:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: XxGhazbaranxX wrote: Hello CCP, The incubus feels a lot more reliable with that overheat fix. That being said, it still feels like it steel needs a bump to the bonus from 3 to 5%. That would make it feel a bit more reliable and not make it overpowered. This being said, the blaster is still less efficient than the rail or the missiles at killing infantry. Somethingnneeds to be done since blasters are supposed to be anti-infantry. So much so that they have a huge penalty againts vehicles. CCP must increase damage by 15% ( same as adv damage mod ) and reduce the spread by a significant amount since the reticule is still pretty big. Excellent. Thanks for the feedback. Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? Swarms still hit behind cover. I think the old radius, before messing with the radius stat, was better because we coul actually hide behind buildings and they would hit the obstruction instead of going around and whipping me silly. But i dont know what is trying to be achieved: using up distance in the turn? giving the ads a chance to use agility? Either way, swarms feel like they are flying longer distances than intended and ive been killed at 485 meters which is 85 meters too far. Ads and ds are dropping pretty quick, with my 6500 hp grimsnes being three shot by fully specced mimmandos. Ads feels like a glass cannon without the cannon part so if we could just get a bit more of a bonus that would be great, maybe even switch the bonus to damage and not RoF. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
DUST Fiend Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 14776	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:24:00 - [19] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: If CCP is so worried about the rail being used as an AI weapon, why don't they just nerf the damage it does against infantry? They've already shown that they can do it against vehicles, would it be so hard to just reverse this? The damage needs to be much higher on the rails, and by reducing their effectiveness on dropsuits it allows the rails to be tailored to attacking vehicles. Personally, I'd rather see a base damage buff and change the Incubus skill to a heat build-up/cooldown bonus. So whatever happened to the whole idea of having small turrets for AI and large turrets for AV? People complained that the large blaster was too good at AI (personally I thought it was fine, except that it was too good at AV) so they had it nerfed. People told us to fit small turrets on our HAVs if we wanted AI. We did. And people still complained and got the small rails nerfed. Now you want to make small rails AV focused? Either keep small turrets AI focused or make each turret type have a certain focus (i.e. large and small blasters for AI). Choose one and stick with it, and don't get butt hurt when people adapt to changes (not talking to you Vulpes, just people in general). Small rails have always been an AV weapon Ten Year Plan (pâÄa¦át¢èa¦á)pâÄs+íGö+GöüGö+
XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1782	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:33:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: Excellent. Thanks for the feedback. Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? Heat fix has made the Railgun Incubus more useful, can actually shoot down dropships again. Swarms: no appreciable change. They still circle buildings. The biggest issue is that by the time you can react to a swarm volley, they are usually too close for any so of manoeuvre to make any difference. Edit: out of curiosity, have you had a chance to look at This Thread? I think there are some thoughts in there that are worth considering (but then I'm biased ) Seems exaggerated, you get hit by the first, the second may be in the air but by the third you should be actively avoiding it. If the third swarm is not as maneuverable, it may be a big factor in survivability. Even just losing 1 or 2 of the missiles from the swarm into a building or hill. Now I have, and stored the link on our Crowdsourcing Trello board. I think i got it. We are not losing swarms behind cover because they swerve more openly. The higher the radius the bigger the ark, the more they evade builings and hit you. Make then have tighter turns like before. Before this whole radius business i used to be able to make them hit buildings. Both changes to radius have to be changed back and another 10% reduction to turn radius. So instead of the + 10 you were doing i think we have to go -10 for a total of -30. -30 because you gave it two consecutive + 10 on different occassion so we need to bring it back to the old turning radius and then subtract 10 from it. REASONING Just like the hmg where everyone thought it needed to be more accurate and it turned out being that it needed to be less accurate, the same is happening with the swarms. CCP and the community think they need to turn less agressively when the opposite is needed. If the swarms turn more agressively they will hit beuildings more often instead of flying around them. Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor

XxGhazbaranxX Eternal Beings Dark Taboo 1784	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:39:00 - [21] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Small rails have always been an AV weapon Yup, but they still outperform small blasters as AI for gunners. Some people are calling for reduced damage against infantry but the reality is that this would still not make the blaster a better choice against infantry. If rails are nerfed against infantry, people will just use missile because they too are better at anti infantry work than blasters. Blasters need a decent buff if CCP want players to consider them anti infantry Plasma Cannon Advocate Dust 514 Survivor
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 858	Posted - 2014.10.30 14:44:00 - [22] - Quote XxGhazbaranxX wrote: Just like the hmg where everyone thought it needed to be more accurate and it turned out being that it needed to be less accurate, the same is happening with the swarms. CCP and the community think they need to turn less agressively when the opposite is needed. If the swarms turn more agressively they will hit beuildings more often instead of flying around them. I think you may be on to something here... Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
TRULY ELITE WarRavens Capital Punishment. 73	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:00:00 - [23] - Quote I never understood why the small blaster wasn't just a front loaded HMG, same clip, same damage maybe add more range and then change the DMG profile to match blasters. OR Minmatar small turret anyone??
VikingKong iBUN Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 144	Posted - 2014.10.30 16:38:00 - [24] - Quote TRULY ELITE wrote: I never understood why the small blaster wasn't just a front loaded HMG, same clip, same damage maybe add more range and then change the DMG profile to match blasters. OR Minmatar small turret anyone?? Yes. Then change the Caldari small turret into a forge gun. Racial parity.
Kaeru Nayiri Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 126	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:40:00 - [25] - Quote The ideal for swarms would be if turning costed extra "fuel" which would effective shorten their range. I've been holding back this suggestion because I know the Devs have al lot on their plate, but here is a basic outline of it. Instead of a hard coded range of 400meters, let's say swarms have 400 hit points, and lose 1 hit point for every "meter of thrust" that propels the swarm. If the swarms has to travel in a perfectly straight line, it will reach 400 meters, but if it has to turn 90 degrees at some point along that path, it has to spend meters of thrust to change it's velocity, lowering it's HP, and reducing it's range. What I want is the ability to scrub swarms by making them either break lock mid way through extreme maneuvers, or make them "lose fuel" through excessive vector changes. If these things were remotely possible, I would also like to see an increase in their payload.
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2416	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:46:00 - [26] - Quote Kaeru Nayiri wrote: The ideal for swarms would be if turning costed extra "fuel" which would effective shorten their range. I've been holding back this suggestion because I know the Devs have al lot on their plate, but here is a basic outline of it. Instead of a hard coded range of 400meters, let's say swarms have 400 hit points, and lose 1 hit point for every "meter of thrust" that propels the swarm. If the swarms has to travel in a perfectly straight line, it will reach 400 meters, but if it has to turn 90 degrees at some point along that path, it has to spend meters of thrust to change it's velocity, lowering it's HP, and reducing it's range. What I want is the ability to scrub swarms by making them either break lock mid way through extreme maneuvers, or make them "lose fuel" through excessive vector changes. If these things were remotely possible, I would also like to see an increase in their payload. Excellent idea, but don't change the payload. They're already good enough to take on tanks and destroy LAVs, both of which dont benefit from this change. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Kaeru Nayiri Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 126	Posted - 2014.10.30 17:56:00 - [27] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Excellent idea, but don't change the payload. They're already good enough to take on tanks and destroy LAVs, both of which dont benefit from this change. You do bring up an excellent point.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 813	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:03:00 - [28] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Have you experienced a change in Swarm efficiency, now that we nerfed their turn radius by another 10%? There is an issue with 'observing swarm behavior' from a pilot's perspective. If you can see them coming you're likely hovering and thus not being evasive. If you're running from them you can't see them. Can you pull data from the game on how often swarm missiles actually reach their target? Are those numbers different for HAVs and DS? On the topic itself: Personally I don't see a use-case for evading swarms as a pilot. Either we nerf swarms until they have the maneuverability of a MLT DS (those hit often enough!) or swarms will always be able to hit their target. If I cover behind a building I do it to break the lock on the third volley. However that strategy is only possible within ~2-3 s of the first swarm being launched, thus only if I spotted the launch itself or if I know that the swarmer is very close for some other reason. Swarms that are in the air are expected to hit 100% from my point of view. Anyways, since my gunship Myron can tank three volleys from a single source (boosters! ) I'll try to keep an eye on swarm missile behavior this weekend. Do you accept invoices for costs incurred during data acquisition?
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1148	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:06:00 - [29] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: If CCP is so worried about the rail being used as an AI weapon, why don't they just nerf the damage it does against infantry? They've already shown that they can do it against vehicles, would it be so hard to just reverse this? The damage needs to be much higher on the rails, and by reducing their effectiveness on dropsuits it allows the rails to be tailored to attacking vehicles. Personally, I'd rather see a base damage buff and change the Incubus skill to a heat build-up/cooldown bonus. Why does that matter? If you die to a small rail from the front of an incubus, the pilot deserved that kill. It's not easy and it's very unreliable. Amarrica! It's Not Safe to Swim.
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game RUST415 185	Posted - 2014.10.30 18:27:00 - [30] - Quote Flying close to buildings to avoid swarms is begging to be thrown about by their impact into the building leading to certain death NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES nerf life Delta- bye bye ads, bye bye scr



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 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 OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 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, OMG Labs. 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.