DUST Search - AV feedback

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

AV feedback

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:51:00 - [1] - Quote This thread is intended to be a living document for review of AV weapons. Both Infantry AV and heavy and small turrets can be discussed here. It is intended to discuss where AV is overperforming and where it is failing. This is a discussion of the weapons and the weapon mods. It is not intended at any point to discuss HAV hull rebalance, or particular dropsuits. The objective is to provide rattati input on the ways and hows vehicles come to destruction. I'll open the discussion with a few points: 1: Light weapon AV values are all over the map. Swarms are almost 400 DPS ahead of the IAFG and the PLC is one of the lowest applied DPS weapons in DUST. 2: Heavy weaponare hamstrung by poor damage mods which add nothing to TTK in most cases. 3: Standard and breach forge guns are inferior in application to the Assault Forge Gun in almost every possible way and are poor choices for AV. 4: Lacking Racial parity in both turrets and infantry AV is creating poor interactions allowing one weapon or one chassis to always be clearly superior. 5: Heavy missile turret burst DPS negates any utility armor vehicles might otherwise have. 6: The railgun maintains the highest alpha, range and sustained DPS among vehicle turrets. 7: the blaster has the worst range, alpha and sustained DPS of all the heavy turrets. It's dispersion is too wide to be of much utility vs. Infantry. Blasters are the worst choice for a heavy turret in all situations. I am quite sure there are more issues. Also where there is a good balance struck we need to look at. While we're fixing what is wrong let's not overlook or lose what is right. AV
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1322	Posted - 2015.01.24 10:53:00 - [2] - Quote Reserved. Typing as up now. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:20:00 - [3] - Quote I disagree on the range of swarms. I believe it's a rate of fire problem. They would be easier to balance around average flight time to target with the time it takes to travel the full 200m being the refire delay time. This would allow the longer lock ranges Without having vehicles hhammered by three shots in under 3.5 seconds. That ungodly DPS rate needs to be slowed. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 619	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:28:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I'll open the discussion with a few points: 1: Light weapon AV values are all over the map. Swarms are almost 400 DPS ahead of the IAFG and the PLC is one of the lowest applied DPS weapons in DUST. 2: Heavy weaponare hamstrung by poor damage mods which add nothing to TTK in most cases. 3: Standard and breach forge guns are inferior in application to the Assault Forge Gun in almost every possible way and are poor choices for AV. 4: Lacking Racial parity in both turrets and infantry AV is creating poor interactions allowing one weapon or one chassis to always be clearly superior. 5: Heavy missile turret burst DPS negates any utility armor vehicles might otherwise have. 6: The railgun maintains the highest alpha, range and sustained DPS among vehicle turrets. 7: the blaster has the worst range, alpha and sustained DPS of all the heavy turrets. It's dispersion is too wide to be of much utility vs. Infantry. Blasters are the worst choice for a heavy turret in all situations. I am quite sure there are more issues. Also where there is a good balance struck we need to look at. While we're fixing what is wrong let's not overlook or lose what is right. 1. Swarms - Broken in many many ways 1a. Locking on through cover - Broken 1b. Firing while not even looking at the target - Broken 1c. Locking onto target then being able to look away and fire - Broken 1d. Missiles travel at 1 speed and that is top speed 1e. Missile tracking is broken - The missiles follow the vehicle where it used to be when it was 1st locked on and if the vehicle has moved the missiles will arrive at the 1st locking point and then move to where the vehicle is now and that includes going around corners and cover 1f. Missiles can go through railings and pipes - Broken 1g. Missiles stop and do a 235deg turn on the spot or in mid air instead of having to turn - Broken 1h. Invisible missiles still happen - Broken 1i. Swarms require 0 skill and aiming ability 1j. AV nades - Remove the seeking mechanism if you cant hit a vehicle then quit the game, timer expires after 5seconds so you cant create minefields 2. FG - Fine mostly - BFG OHK vehicles, IAFG is fastest at applied damage, normal is a bit meh but still useful 3. PLC - Needs a buff 4. Railgun - Applies sustained damage - 4 shots is terrible - Less range than a SL 5. Missiles - High alpha and should stay that way - No splash for a 6ft missile and infantry ignore it, should not happen 6. Blaster - Accuracy nerfed, dispersion is terrible and can miss a LAV at 50m - No use in using it 7. Armor hull is terrible, shield is king 8. 30milSP pilot gets nothing out of 30milSP compared to a 0SP pilot who uses a sica apart from cooldown/activation times 9. Modules are all the same, not even a different in tiers for what it actually does 10. Chrome/Uprising was 100x better even if the swarms and AV nades were even more broken beyond belief
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1322	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:28:00 - [5] - Quote It's kinda both. Ditching Minmando bonus would be one thing to help. I don't think any suits should get AV related bonuses it just invalidates the usage by other suits(if it's balanced) or makes them ZOMG **** your Incubus in in three rounds(otherwise). The time it does take to fire three volleys of swarms is stupidly low. For sure. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 768	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:36:00 - [6] - Quote Concerning swarms, i'm going to copy pasta this from another thread. "I think the issue is sort of like scans. Either swarms get in hits or they dont. If they don't dropships will always escape death, if they do Swarms have an abnormally high likleyhood of landing a kill. There is no grey area where either swarmer skill or dropship pilot skill will be able to negate one another. With the lock on style we have, Pilots aren't fightig the swarmer, they are fighting against A.I missiles in flight, that do 90% of the work. Swarmers root for the missile, and when the AI wins, they feel like they won, and the pilot feels cheated. Even if pilots had flares, the swarmer would feel cheated because he could do everything right the AI still wont land a hit. We should try to come up with some middle ground so that swarmers and pilots have a fighting chance that is within thier control and not th A.I. instead of, frankly, snitching about swarms or that once upon a time where an XT1 landed on your head. Core Mechanics have got to be tweaked before this issue can be resolved." Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 1322	Posted - 2015.01.24 11:43:00 - [7] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: stuff Yeah so nerf the ** out of swarms so people who want** to not put effort will only do minimal damage. PLC is very difficult to use even after the buffs and forge requires the user to be in a heavy suit without all the benefits of an HMG. Wanna fire and forget? Forget getting the best AV weapon then. Dual tanking is for bad players. 21 day EVE trial.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6700	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:12:00 - [8] - Quote Let me clarify something: This thread is DIRECTLY related to Rattati's bring back the HAVs initiative. It is not a gripe thread. It is not a general complaint thread. It is not in relation to anything but the HAV thread. A statement that "swarms will be difficult to balance around with the HAVs because (insert numbers here) this is what I think might sosolve the problem." Is perfectly applicable. Generically saying "too much range" or "no skill" Are not helpful. this is not a gripe at the devs thread. This is us providing actionable information to aid ratrati and insure that the HAVs will neither be invulnerable to enemy infantry AV and turrets, nor will they be easy meat. I will not be adding any complaint posts to the OP. Only watch points backed by numbers. again. This is NOT a gripe thread. This is an information consolidation thread. If we can't play nice I'll give my advice without your help. But I'd much rather see cooperation. The points will be expanded as the HAV rebalance progresses and new things come to light. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 619	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:39:00 - [9] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Let me clarify something: This thread is DIRECTLY related to Rattati's bring back the HAVs initiative. It is not a gripe thread. It is not a general complaint thread. It is not in relation to anything but the HAV thread. A statement that "swarms will be difficult to balance around with the HAVs because (insert numbers here) this is what I think might sosolve the problem." Is perfectly applicable. Generically saying "too much range" or "no skill" Are not helpful. this is not a gripe at the devs thread. This is us providing actionable information to aid ratrati and insure that the HAVs will neither be invulnerable to enemy infantry AV and turrets, nor will they be easy meat. I will not be adding any complaint posts to the OP. Only watch points backed by numbers. again. This is NOT a gripe thread. This is an information consolidation thread. If we can't play nice I'll give my advice without your help. But I'd much rather see cooperation. The points will be expanded as the HAV rebalance progresses and new things come to light. 1. Then this thread isnt needed because first and foremost pilots need to have decent vehicles which are worth skilling into and are useful on the battlefield for PC/FW and are fun for pilots to have fights 2. AV needs to go on the backburner until the above is sorted out
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6701	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:48:00 - [10] - Quote Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. AV

Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 57	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:59:00 - [11] - Quote Plasma Cann: great anti shield AV, able to reload and fire before shield recharge begins. Needs to be heavily skilled to be truly effective (reload and prof). I say it's the most SP expensive AV (since the higher the prof, the closer to "good" it gets.). At prof 5, it does a fair bit of damage to shield vehicles. Predicting the "traveling" parabola is the most useful thing someone needs to learn to unlock the full potential of the cannon. ^ to use the cannon as effective AV, devoting skill points AND player skill is a must, one cannot simply just pick up a cannon and expect to be good w/ it. If the cannon is buffed, don't make it more than 250/300 damage (< still more than needed imho) (S = shield, A = armor) 1501 -> 1751/1801: 1501 * prof 5 (1.26 [sic]) = 1891.26s/1350.9a -> 1751 * prof 5 (1.26 [sic]) = 2206.26s/1575.9a. We are aware shields have lower hp pools and a recharge time. The 1751 allotek can 3 shot a sica, 4/5 shot a well built gunny. Hopefully cann tourists will understand it is a prof it up, or don't use it at all due to the higher difficulty accompanied with low skills. Thanks for reading. Edit: It is the only AV weapon I have prof'd out. (and when i prof out a weapon, i have to prof out my knowledge of said weapon.) If you have any questions (as a PLC user) and no one is available, i'll gladly answer. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 923	Posted - 2015.01.24 12:59:00 - [12] - Quote I'm split about how to proceed with the Swarm. While I see that, within it's range, it is much superior to all other AV options, it also isn't much of a problem from my perspective as a pilot. Sure I'd like to shrug them off better, but I generally don't break a sweat unless somebody brings a specialized Minmando with a pro SL, which seems fair. I could support opening it's lock-on range and reducing the sustained DPS, but I feel the SL has an important role in scaring off blaster tanks, which is more in line with it's comparatively short range. As a combined measure we could move the SL towards lower sustained long-range DPS while improving the performance of the PLC significantly. That would align much better with racial styles, but also be a pretty large change. This could go like this: Swarm Launcher: - Lock on time to 1.6 seconds - Lock on range to 250 m - Missile range to 250 m - Shots per clip to 4 - Decrease direct hit damage to dial in a ~20% reduction in sustained DPS (- Increase missile speed by ~15-20% to improve damage application on moving targets within range) Plasma Cannon: - Simple ~30-40% direct damage buff. As an effect I as a DS pilot expect to be able to linger temporarily within SL range, but I will have to repeatedly leave to regenerate. Given that the damage-per-clip is now distributed over 4 shots I will have more time to leave the SL's range. I expect to more often catch a stray shot from the increased lock-on range, but less finishing shots due to the decreased travel range. For HAVs I expect the PLC to become a serious threat within 50 meters and thus take over the blaster-deterrent role. Disclaimer: I'm making this (unfinished) suggestion here to start a constructive discussion. Feel free to suggest a different model if you have something to improve.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:00:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished
Cyzad4 Blackfish Corp. 590	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:28:00 - [14] - Quote I can't really add too much numbers wise, but one thing I would like to see is some tweaks to movement penalties correlated to added magnification on FG. BFG, high damage with terrible charge and you're locked in place so much higher magnification, I'm not saying SR level or anything that silly but some payoff to being a sitting duck. FG, honestly I think is in a decent place, reduced movement but you can hold a charge so it balances out, I would like to see at least marginal magnifaction thogh. AFG, reduce movement penalty by half at least, no magnification. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6703	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:41:00 - [15] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished The point. It has flown over your head. Quit trying to get vehicles buffed and AV gimped. Further this is not solely a thread for infantry AV. Turrets are rather important as well I think. I could be wrong. AV
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6703	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:42:00 - [16] - Quote Cyzad4 wrote: I can't really add too much numbers wise, but one thing I would like to see is some tweaks to movement penalties correlated to added magnification on FG. BFG, high damage with terrible charge and you're locked in place so much higher magnification, I'm not saying SR level or anything that silly but some payoff to being a sitting duck. FG, honestly I think is in a decent place, reduced movement but you can hold a charge so it balances out, I would like to see at least marginal magnifaction thogh. AFG, reduce movement penalty by half at least, no magnification. There is no upside to mobility lock. Stationary charge plus long charge time means the only vehicle that will get hit twice is one driven by an idiot. AV
Gyn Wallace OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 204	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:46:00 - [17] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished 1.Then 2.why 3.aren't 4.you 5.posting 6.in 7.the 8.other 9.thread 10.instead 11.of 12.this 13.one? The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 13:50:00 - [18] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer Fo Cused wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer your input is neither wanted or needed unless you have something useful to add. Stop trying to push me out of the process. I'm not going anywhere. 1. You always sort out vehicles and there fits first and AV is always left last because vehicles can exist without AV but not the other way around 2. I can say the same thing since you are trying to force AV into a HAV only process where even HAVs are far from finished The point. It has flown over your head. Quit trying to get vehicles buffed and AV gimped. Further this is not solely a thread for infantry AV. Turrets are rather important as well I think. I could be wrong. 1. No i gave you what you wanted in the 1st post, AV feedback 2. The hulls have to be sorted out first along with the modules and any other modules that may come back into play 3. The turrets and AV are in the same boat as in how much damage and hits does it take to kill certain hulls at a base and hulls which are skilled up level 5 with everything in the slots but that is only after the hulls are done 4. You cannot ignore the problems that come with certain AV or turrets 5. If we did it your way and did AV first then we would be balancing hulls and fits around AV which is wrong, AV only exists because infantry needed an option to combat vehicles without needing a vehicle
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6703	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:11:00 - [19] - Quote Lazer grow up and quit trying to derail ythreads. You saying this thread is useless Isn't useful feedback. Rattati said to go ahead and pull the AV data together which I am doing. I really have zero interest in your opinion on the matter. If you have numbers and real feedback great. If not, I will pretty much ignore your lack of input from here on out. Your usual tactic of spamming negative feedback until the OP gives up and the thread dies will not work. AV
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 57	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:14:00 - [20] - Quote Alright can we stop arguing for the sake of AV balance? Don't make this thread become another waste full of complaints. Please? There will never be balance if we cannot even balance ourselves between reason, emotion, and logic. Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.

Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:16:00 - [21] - Quote Thank you. Like I said. This is an information gathering thread not a complaint thread. READ. If your input has been covered already In another post repeating it over and over will not help. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1996	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:28:00 - [22] - Quote My only suggestions for right now are to do with the plasma cannon. Step 1) They need to be redesigned to use less cpu and to actually use powergrid (also fix the plc fitting optimization skill). Step 2) Basic plasma cannon should be pushed up to the damage that advanced has(1155 -> 1330) advanced should be jumped up to proto level damage (1330 -> 1505) and proto should get the same 175 point damage increase (1505 -> 1680) Step 3) Rework plasma cannon skill to be 3% reload speed per level from 5% charge reduction per level (.15seconds at max level). Standardize PLC charge time at .45s. Step 4) Maybe add a bit more ammo carried. There's also currently roughly a half second delay between the round leaves a plasma cannon until you start reloading it. This needs to be fixed. Overall the plasma cannon is a bit of a tricky weapon to buff because if you give too much damage or tweaking other stats too hard it starts overperforming against infantry. I think for the most part that the plasma cannon is in a relatively okay spot for light av work given its ability to be shot at infantry or vehicles, it's capable of one-shotting LAV's which is good and it puts some serious hurt into dropships or tanks on a hit (which when followed up by swarm or forge fire makes it work very well). I haven't ran the math for what these changes would do to its total dps at the moment, but I believe the changes to damage would allow proto plasma cannons to oneshot most sentinels (instead of leaving them alive with ~100 health) and overall would be a small buff to their performance against vehicles. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:30:00 - [23] - Quote As far as the PLC goes: How badly will it break if we buff it via reload/charge rather than damage? I got the PLC numbers close to AFG efficiency in my other proposal. Will this break it? My gut says no due to the AFG also being direct fire splash. Not going to plug any numbers together till I actually SEE the finalized HAV stats and example fits. So beyond discussing where they crap out and traits to look directly at we're theorycrafting. For swarms: The raw Dps needs to drop. The ability to machinegun missiles is a bit much. My thought is it wasn't the range. Its the rate of fire. Current lock time is base 1.4 modified by skills. Lock can be achieved in 0.85 seconds. That's three shots in under 3 seconds. Faster by far than any alpha weapon. Swarms are a delayed DPS weapon. This means, like in EVE you can literally have all three flights in the air before the first impact. Swarms travel at 60m/sec. They hit 200m in 3.3 seconds. what if 3.3 seconds, the travel time to 200m was it's base lock time with extended lock range? That way you could change the damage values, and the proto lock time would be 2.5 seconds. This would give pilots a chance to react and evade, while giving a swarmer a reason to get close, or alternatively position to be able to volley multiple shots from long range. Damage can be adjusted to keep overall DPS reasonable. AV
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 1996	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:46:00 - [24] - Quote ^I'm not an avid PLC user I just squad with the guy who came in 3rd for PLC kills during officer event. I don't think having 'dps' similar to or potentially even higher than an AFG would be 'broken' due to the skill required for use. I would also agree that lock time is an issue for the swarm launcher. I would also say that direct damage per shot is a bit low for the forge gun. Breach should be highest damage per shot, assault should be highest dps, std should be somewhere in between. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2015.01.24 14:58:00 - [25] - Quote The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:00:00 - [26] - Quote MINA Longstrike wrote: ^I'm not an avid PLC user I just squad with the guy who came in 3rd for PLC kills during officer event. I don't think having 'dps' similar to or potentially even higher than an AFG would be 'broken' due to the skill required for use. I would also agree that lock time is an issue for the swarm launcher. I would also say that direct damage per shot is a bit low for the forge gun. Breach should be highest damage per shot, assault should be highest dps, std should be somewhere in between. Given that the PLC is the shortest range weapon at minimum matching it to AFG. It has bigger splash so more infantry utility. As far as swarms go. Because of the 150m lock limit swarms cannot be nerfed in any meaningful way without making them worthless. A dropship travels 150m in 3 seconds at speed. This means swarms HAVE to drop a killing payload in under three seconds, no margin for error. Balancing it as a long range, long flight time weapon would give pilots more reaction time and minimize reliance on the commando for effective use. The three seconds of opportunity has created more problems than it solved AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:00:00 - [27] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Alright can we stop arguing for the sake of AV balance? Don't make this thread become another waste full of complaints. Please? There will never be balance if we cannot even balance ourselves between reason, emotion, and logic. This thread is to help balance, if you have a problem make a logical and professional response. Or you'll always be complaining. No one wants to help a tyrant or a cold hearted person. 1. Balance can only be created when you accept the faults a weapon or turret has, it is not good saying well this is how it works on paper when in game its that broken it really overperforms due to how broken it is 2. You cannot balance the SL when it is so utterly broken, it either gets fixed or deleted and they have tried fixing it many a time and it still does not work
Breakin Stuff Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 6704	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:01:00 - [28] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Check my sig. I have all the PLC numbers loaded. AV
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 620	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:03:00 - [29] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Lazer grow up and quit trying to derail ythreads. You saying this thread is useless Isn't useful feedback. Rattati said to go ahead and pull the AV data together which I am doing. I really have zero interest in your opinion on the matter. If you have numbers and real feedback great. If not, I will pretty much ignore your lack of input from here on out. Your usual tactic of spamming negative feedback until the OP gives up and the thread dies will not work. 1. Not derailing 2. I gave you info on 3rd post 3. I have 0 intrest on you commenting on HAVs in the feedback thread but it doesnt stop you spewing BS 4. You tried spamming my thread with negative feedback so you are just as bad, hypocrite 5. You cannot make numbers for AV or turrets until the hulls have been finished so you know what stats are at a base level and when stuff is level 5 and when the hull is complete with all modules on
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood RISE of LEGION 58	Posted - 2015.01.24 15:27:00 - [30] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: The PLC's charge time + reload speed determines the ROF, 0.375 is the charge time at proto ( 0.5 x (1-25%) = 0.375) Check my sig. I have all the PLC numbers loaded. Thanks, reading it as i type Entering the void and becoming wind with my repbus.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: 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.