Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

12 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Ship balancing] Why active tank bonuses are plain worse than resist bonuses

Author
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#1 Posted: 2012.11.06 13:48  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
(Updated tl;dr at the bottom of this post)

Ever since I started EvE, I was struck by the fundamental imbalance of Amarr/Caldari resist tank bonuses vs the gallente/minmatar active tank bonuses. This morning, I took an EFT look at what Fleet Command Ships would be fitted like if gang links were nerfed to affect only on grid fleet members as often suggested (most recently in CCP Ytterbiums latest devblog). This really pointed out the tank bonuses imbalance.

Edit: Clarification: This is about resist vs. active tank bonuses. The command ships are just an example.

Part I: The fundamentals

First of all, let's demonstrate that the resist bonuses are (almost) just as good for active tanking than the active tank bonuses.

All skills at V Prophecy with just a medium armor repairer II fitted: up to 70 ehp/s repaired.
All skills at V Myrmidon with just a medium armor repairer II fitted: up to 72 ehp/s repaired.

That's less than 3% more for the Myrmidon.

All skills at V Ferox with just a large shield booster II fitted: up to 110 ehp/s repaired. (not counting pasive regen)
All skills at V Cyclone with just a large shield booster II fitted: up to 114 ehp/s repaired. (not counting pasive regen)

That's less than 4% more for the Cyclone.

Note: When counting passive regen, the Ferox actually gets more total regen, but that's due to a stat difference between the hulls, not to the difference between active and resist bonuses.

Considering that the hull bonuses don't suffer from stacking penalties, additional fittings are irrelevant.

As a reminder, the resistance bonussed ships get 25% more out of armor plates, shield extenders and passive shield regen. I won't go into details of that simple to understand fact.

Finally, the resist bonuses, as opposed to active tank or buffer tank bonuses (a few ships have them), do also help incoming remote repairs, which is probably their greatest strenght.

Part II: On grid gank links (OGGL)

Considering that:

  • In order to use all 3 gang link mods, you need to put too much fitting resources (via command processors) in anything but Fleet Command Ships (FCS) or Capital ships, so t3 links and other BC sized ships won't be used for OGGL.
  • You won't always be able or willing to bring a Capital ship for OGGL.
  • Local tanks are not strong enough to withstand fire from an entire opposing fleet.
  • MWDs help in keeping up with the fleet, ABs help in damage mitigation.


Buffer tanked FCS with MWD or Dual Prop would be the most commonly used ships for OGGL.

Let's have a look at the numbers for such ships.

Before implants and external links (ignoring the onboard links wouldn't make much sense), with t2 tank (and rigs):

Claymore, Minmatar FCS: Can reach 141k EHP (MWD, meta4 650mm arty) or 122k EHP (dual prop, meta4 650mm arty)
Eos, Gallente FCS: Can reach 141k EHP (dual prop, no PWG left for medium guns) or 128k EHP (dual prop, t2 electron blasters)
Vulture, Caldari FCS: Can reach 220k EHP (MWD, 250mm t2 rails) or 186k EHP (dual prop, meta4 250mm rails).
Damnation, Amarr FCS: Can reach 326k EHP (MWD, no PWG left for medium guns) 313k EHP (dual prop, t2 rapid light missile launchers).

The former two don't have resist tank bonuses.
This shows that the basic OGGL Damnation has over twice the EHP of a basic OGGL Claymore or Eos.

With implants, external links (from vulture or damnation with mindlink) and deadspace (C-Type) tank:

Claymore: Can reach 256k EHP (MWD, meta4 650mm arty) or 225k EHP (dual prop, meta4 650mm arty)
Eos: Can reach 310k EHP (dual prop, no PWG left for medium guns) 266k EHP (dual prop, t2 electron blasters)
Vulture: Can reach 320k EHP (MWD, 250mm t2 rails) or 262k EHP (dual prop, meta4 250mm rails).
Damnation: Can reach 751k EHP (MWD, no PWG left for medium guns) 630k EHP (dual prop, t2 rapid light missile launchers).

Not only does this show the ridiculous difference between armor and shield pimp buffer tanks due to slave implants, but also that the Damnation and the Vulture have large edges over the Eos and the Claymore simply because they have resistance based tank bonuses, which are a must have in fleet combat situations where you can expect to be the primary target.

Note: The Damnation has a big advantage, because it also has a buffer bonus on top of the resist bonus, making it the subcapital ship with the biggest buffer tank in the game, by far. I belive that all fleet command ships should get similar bonuses, because of their role.

As a final thought on this particular case study, one could argue that it is legitimate that the tank linking ships have bigger buffers because they would probably be higher on the target priority list.

Part 3: Conclusion (tl;dr)

The resist bonuses help with active tanking, buffer tanking and remote tanking, while the active bonuses only help with active tanking, and they don't even help (considerably) more with that than resist bonuses do.

This creates an imbalance in ship usability in situations where buffer and/or remote tanking are required, because the active tank bonuses are essentially wasted.

Possible solutions:

- Replace all active repair bonuses with resist bonuses
- Replace all the resist bonuses with buffer bonuses
- Make active repair bonuses affect incoming remote repairs (would still not help the buffer issue)
- Increase the base HP of the active bonused ships

I would prefer the first solution, because it would offer more choice when choosing which ship to bring for any given situation.

Feel free to share your opinions on this.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#2 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:02  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
Addendum: Active tank fit numbers for reference

3 Gang links, best implants (always mindlink in slot 10), FCS tank links and C-Type Deadspace mods included:

[Ship: EHP, Sustainable Defense with AB running if dual prop or with MWD off if not/Max Defense, Other fit details)

Armor:

Eos: 73k EHP, 2868/3001 EHP/s, dual prop, dual cap booster, no PWG left for medium guns.
Damnation: 138k EHP, 2874/2974 EHP/s, dual prop, dual cap booster, T2 Rapid Light Missile Launchers.

Surreal note: The EoS needs a bit over 40 minutes of continuous repping to make up for the difference in EHP.

Shield (ASB, not counting passive regen):

Claymore: 87k EHP, 8384 EHP/s for 35sec (then 0 EHP/sec for 60sec), dual prop, t2 220mm AC
Vulture: 107k EHP, 8108 EHP/s for 35sec (then 0 EHP/sec for 60sec), dual prop, t2 Dual 150mm Rails

Surreal note: The Claymore needs a bit over 2 repping cycles (over 3 minutes) to make up for the difference in EHP.

Shield (Old School, not counting passive regen)

Claymore: 87k EHP, 1843/4051 EHP/s, dual prop, t2 dual 180mm AC
Vulture: 107k EHP, 1708/3918 EHP/s, dual prop, t2 Dual 150mm Rails

Surreal note: The Claymore needs a bit over 2 minutes of continuous repping to make up for the difference in EHP.

Conclusion:

The EHP granted by the resist bonuses, even in a fit without buffer mods, grant enough buffer to virtually nullify the slight edge active tank bonused ships get.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#3 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:03
Good thoughts - however, EFT shouldn't be used as the be all/end all of ship designs (as good as it is) ; It can generate marginally (only a few percent) different values to what you can personally acheive.

Also, the different bonuses reflect their roles anyway - e.g. Myrmidon was designed because the non-capsuleer pilots getting into the Brutix threw themselves at the enemy and ended up greasy smears, while those ships that had systems designed for mid-battle repairs tended to fair better.

So, I think they should look at them a little, because yes some forms are a little overpowered (and this is coming from a Damnation pilot) which should be brought into line a bit more, but not at the exclusion of the differences that make them unique ships.


Also, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni :)
Blessed are those that carry the Empress' Light; with it they destroy the shadows
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#4 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:10  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
Arline Kley wrote:

Also, the different bonuses reflect their roles anyway - e.g. Myrmidon was designed because the non-capsuleer pilots getting into the Brutix threw themselves at the enemy and ended up greasy smears, while those ships that had systems designed for mid-battle repairs tended to fair better.


The Brutix and the Myrmidon have the same tanking boni. I'm not talking about stat differences in hulls, just about the imbalance between the two types of tank bonusses.

PS: OP edited to include the correct plural of bonus.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
#5 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:28
i will say a resounding no. ships with resist bonus are more pvp based for buffer, whilst boost bonus are not buffer nor used in pvp (unless stupidly rich with emphasis on stupid.. unless its a hawk :p )
_______________________
http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg

Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#6 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:31
In Part I, you appear to be judging ship usefulness solely on the basis of tank, completely ignoring, well, every other parameter.

In Part II, your conclusion that the Vulture has a huge edge over the Eos is not supported by your own data. The Damnation is the anomaly.

You have identified a problem with Fleet Command Ships, not with tanking bonuses. It's no secret that Fleet CS need a fundamental rework, part of which would almost certainly involve giving them all resist bonuses, HIC-style.
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#7 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:31
Seranova Farreach wrote:
i will say a resounding no. ships with resist bonus are more pvp based for buffer, whilst boost bonus are not buffer nor used in pvp (unless stupidly rich with emphasis on stupid.. unless its a hawk :p )


I think you didn't get the point.

Resist bonussed ships can do everything the active tank bonussed ships can do, but not the other way around.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#8 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:36
Gypsio III wrote:
In Part I, you appear to be judging ship usefulness solely on the basis of tank, completely ignoring, well, every other parameter.


I'm talking about tank bonusses, not about ship usefulness.

Gypsio III wrote:
In Part II, your conclusion that the Vulture has a huge edge over the Eos is not supported by your own data. The Damnation is the anomaly.


As I said, This is due to slave implants. It has an important edge over the claymore.

Gypsio III wrote:
You have identified a problem with Fleet Command Ships, not with tanking bonuses. It's no secret that Fleet CS need a fundamental rework, part of which would almost certainly involve giving them all resist bonuses, HIC-style.


I could have taken Hyperion vs Abbadon or Maelstroem vs. Rokh. They are just an example. At least you agree with my conclusion. Thanks for adding the HICs as an example of how to do it right. This just proves my point.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#9 Posted: 2012.11.06 14:49
Since we fly ships, not bonuses, it is worthless to talk about bonuses in isolation. You need to look at the entire package.

So you are now saying that the problem is Slaves, rather than the Vulture's resist bonus? Confusing.

HICs have a specific role that requires high EHP. It is easy to argue that this also applies to Fleet CS. Other ships, however, do not have such a clearly defined role, and hence a comparison that uses EHP alone will not be useful.
Gallente Federation
#10 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:07
Iris Bravemount wrote:
(tl;dr at the buttom)

Ever since I started EvE, I was struck by the fundamental imbalance of Amarr/Caldari resist tank boni vs the gallente/minmatar active tank boni. This morning, I took an EFT look at what Fleet Command Ships would be fitted like if gang links were nerfed to affect only on grid fleet members as often suggested. This really pointed out the tank boni imbalance.



The two armor tank is Buffer (Passive) tank vs Active tank.

Amarr deal with good armor resistance ships, that and the lack of ammo for missions (T1's never break), and the fact that I find Amarr ships to be better looking mainly due to the symmetry of almost all of their designs, is all why I prefer to use them.

Resistance tanking is more effective with active repairs. When you increase your resists, both your EHP and EHP/s repair will increase. If you maintain a given resistance and put on some armor plating, the EHP will increase but the EHP/s repair will not but you can obtain a higher EHP with the proper balance of resists and plating than you can with maximizing resists and having a repair.

Either type has their strengths and weaknesses. Sticking with Amarr (since that's what I know), lasers are cap intensive and if you want to maximize dmg output, you will be better off buffer tanking. That is, using resists and armor plates to maximize EHP.

Even then, your damage output will still be lower than the other weapon types, mainly because the damage type of lasers is limited and even then the base damage to armor and shields is a tad low which I think is to offset the fact that the ammo never runs out (for T1) and you can swap out lenses instantly (no 10 sec timer).

But any damage you take, no matter how little, is done and you have to dock up and either pay to repair, or equip an armor repair then undock to repair it. Or have someone with a remote armor repair do the repairing. Which is why if you are in a fleet with armor repair logi, it's best to buffer tank and maximize damage.

I prefer active tanking when soloing mission. I don't need a lot of dmg to take the enemies out but I find I have much more staying power. Active tanking has less EHP but when you take their damage output, subtract the resistance, then subtract your repair/s from their dps, quite often only at the beginning of fighting a group does the dps after resistance out shine the rps. So once you pop a couple, it turns around and by the time you finish the group, your back to max armor.

No paying for ammo and no paying for repair.
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#11 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:15
Gypsio III wrote:
Since we fly ships, not bonuses, it is worthless to talk about bonuses in isolation. You need to look at the entire package.


Agreed.
If I knew how to customize EFT stats (like simulating a myrmidon with resist bonusses instead of active bonusses) I would. Blink
I am trying to get the focus on the bonus alone because this is not about the stat balance (base HP, speed, sig, etc) between the ships.

Gypsio III wrote:
So you are now saying that the problem is Slaves, rather than the Vulture's resist bonus? Confusing.

Nope, just saying you should compare shield ships to shield ships and armor ships to armor ships.

Gypsio III wrote:
HICs have a specific role that requires high EHP. It is easy to argue that this also applies to Fleet CS. Other ships, however, do not have such a clearly defined role, and hence a comparison that uses EHP alone will not be useful.


This is where we disagree. The HICs show that at some point, someone at CCP undestood that active boni are just not viable in fleet situations. I think it is very useful to compare two types of defensive bonuses with regard to their impact on restricting ship usage. As I demonstrated, active tanking bonusses are just plain worse than resist bonusses in every regard. So let's get rid of them.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#12 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:19
Angeal MacNova wrote:

A lot of text.


I agree. You just illustrated my point in another way. Resist bonuses are better than active repair bonuses because they can do the same thing and more.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
The G0dfathers
#13 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:30
The new devblog by Ytterbium seems to be saying that they will be looking to balance active /passive and armour/shield tanks when they begin working on battlecruisers and battleships \o/

Hopefully this will go some way towards making active and/or armour tanks more useful; but with regard to your argument and numbers - I agree whole heartedly Big smile
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#14 Posted: 2012.11.06 15:47
Nikuno wrote:
The new devblog by Ytterbium seems to be saying that they will be looking to balance active /passive and armour/shield tanks when they begin working on battlecruisers and battleships \o/

Hopefully this will go some way towards making active and/or armour tanks more useful; but with regard to your argument and numbers - I agree whole heartedly Big smile


Oh wow, talk about good timing.

However, they only mention the active vs passive tanking problem once and briefIy. I hope they will still tackle this and that they will apply this idea to the smaller hulls as well.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
#15 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:50
Why are you trying to remove a fun tanking style?

In short, **** off and no, active armour tanking doesn't need to go and in fact must not. Have you failed to work out or watch how others make it successful in PvP?

If it's not competitive enough, then improve the modules, bonuses or ships designed to be involved in it. Don't remove it because there aren't armour Crystals, or resist bonuses help with buffer and RR fits too, or link ships have issues.
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#16 Posted: 2012.11.06 16:56  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Why are you trying to remove a fun tanking style?

In short, **** off and no, active armour tanking doesn't need to go and in fact must not. Have you failed to work out or watch how others make it successful in PvP?

If it's not competitive enough, then improve the modules, bonuses or ships designed to be involved in it. Don't remove it because there aren't armour Crystals, or resist bonuses help with buffer and RR fits too, or link ships have issues.


Did you even read what I posted? I'm just saying that resist bonuses allow active tanking just as well as direct active tanking bonuses, but the latter are only useful for this one purpose, while the resist bonuses are way more versatile.

The direct active tanking bonuses are what is broken and need to go. I never said that active tanking needs to be removed. Shocked
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Shadow Cartel
#17 Posted: 2012.11.06 18:12
Active tanking bonuses just need to be substantially higher than passive tanking bonuses...

Look at the incursus.. Its divine.
BYDI recruitment closed-ish
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#18 Posted: 2012.11.06 20:37  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Active tanking bonuses just need to be substantially higher than passive tanking bonuses...

Look at the incursus.. Its divine.


Challenge accepted. Blink

Please look at the following four fits (feel free to comment on them if you think they are not good at reflecting what the ships are capable of):

Quote:
[Incursus, Active]
Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

1MN MicroWarpdrive II
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 150

Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S

Small Anti-Explosive Pump I
Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Small Processor Overclocking Unit I


Hobgoblin II x1


3787 EHP, 100/157 EHP/s, 1m 2s cap (3m 41s with MWD off), 152 DPS @ 0.9/2.5 km, 2756 m/s top speed, 3s align time

Quote:
[Incursus, Buffer]
200mm Reinforced Titanium Plates I
Damage Control II
Prototype Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
200mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I

1MN MicroWarpdrive II
'Langour' Drive Disruptor I
Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I

Light Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S

Small Anti-Explosive Pump I
Small Trimark Armor Pump I
Small Trimark Armor Pump I


Hobgoblin II x1


7922 EHP, cap stable, 144 DPS @ 0.8/1.9 km, 2299 m/s top speed, 5.4s align time


Quote:
[Punisher, Active]
Small Armor Repairer II
Small Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

1MN MicroWarpdrive II
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 200

Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Small Diminishing Power System Drain I

Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Small Anti-Explosive Pump I


4201 EHP, 131/156 EHP/s, 1m 42s cap (stable with MWD off), 101 DPS @ 3.4/1.9 km, 2571 m/s top speed, 4.8s align time

Quote:
[Punisher, Buffer]
400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Damage Control II
Prototype Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I
Prototype Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane I

Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I

Gatling Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Gatling Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
Gatling Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency S
[empty high slot]

Small Trimark Armor Pump I
Small Trimark Armor Pump I
Small Trimark Armor Pump I


12165 EHP, cap stable, 97 DPS @ 3/0.6 km, 2238 m/s top speed, 5.7s align time

Now let's do some number crunching Roll

First, the active tanked ships :

Incursus: 3787 EHP, 100/157 EHP/s, 1m 2s cap (3m 41s with MWD off), 152 DPS @ 0.9/2.5 km, 2756 m/s top speed, 3s align time
Punisher: 4201 EHP, 131/156 EHP/s, 1m 42s cap (stable with MWD off), 101 DPS @ 3.4/1.9 km, 2571 m/s top speed, 4.8s align time

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the lack of scram on the punisher, this is about the tanking bonuses.
The incursus manages a meager 1 EHP/s more than the purifier, but has 414 less EHP than the Punisher. Considering that it can't run its tank for more than 221 s (assuming no MWD usage and no neuting), it will never outtank the Punisher with an active tank.
But wait, it deals 50% more damage! Unfortunately, even if its 152 dps are applied perfectly, the Punisher can tank 156 dps permanently as long as its MWD is off. The Punisher won't break the Incusus' tank either, so without third party interference, the battle would be a pure cap battle, in which the punisher, with its NOS, has a slight advantage (the incursus has more cargo space though).

Next, the buffer tanked ships:

Incursus: 7922 EHP, cap stable, 144 DPS @ 0.8/1.9 km, 2299 m/s top speed, 5.4s align time
Punisher: 12165 EHP, cap stable, 97 DPS @ 3/0.6 km, 2238 m/s top speed, 5.7s align time

The Punisher has 4243 EHP more than the Incursus, that's 53% more! With theoretical optimal tracking for both sides, the Punisher would break the Incursus' tank 3 s before the blasters take their toll on its tank (81 s vs 84 s). But in practice, tracking should even this out.

The main difference, is when remote repairs come into play. What if an oneiros starts repping each of those four ships with one repper? How much EHP/s would each ship gain?

Active Incursus: 212 EHP/s/RR mod
Active Punisher: 287 EHP/s/RR mod, 35% more
Buffer Incursus: 202 EHP/s/RR mod
Buffer Punisher: 292 EHP/s/RR mod, 44.5% more


Results:

The only saving grace of the Incursus is its DPS (for which the Punisher has no bonus, btw). It has always worse EHP, always worse resists (leading to less efficient RR) and can't even perform better at active tanking than the punisher.

This only proves my point: Active armor bonuses are worse than resist bonuses in every regard and should be replaced.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
#19 Posted: 2012.11.06 22:43
Like the thoughts. A bit sceptical cause of alphamaelstroms.

You can change ship information rather easily with eveHQ, if you want a resistance based myrmidon, this could be fastest.

"I honestly thought I was in lowsec"

Moving pictures
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
#20 Posted: 2012.11.07 12:29
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Like the thoughts. A bit sceptical cause of alphamaelstroms.

You can change ship information rather easily with eveHQ, if you want a resistance based myrmidon, this could be fastest.



I managed to create the custom ship, but I can't open a fitting window for it. I also found no info on how to do that in the EHQ FAQ or via google.

Could you please tell me how it works?
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
12 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump