Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 01:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the return of more stupid afk cloaking whine threads, I figured a thread for those of us that would like to see features that improve cloaking would be nice for a change.
* Only non cloaked vehicles and structures occupied or directly controlled by players should break a cloak. Piloted Ships, controlled drones, fighters, probes, POSes, and Stations etc. Not can spam, wrecks, and asteroids.
* All CovOps ships gaining Bombers 0 targeting recalibration after de-cloaking. Either free or by an advanced Cloak Skill that requires Cloaking V.
* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan)
I know there's long been called for improvements for Black-Ops ships, but I'll let someone else that's more familiar with their use add good improvements for them. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
228
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 02:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
+1
I like everything I see in this thread.
Also Blk Ops needs the ability to use Cov Ops cloaking devices. |
Sparky11080
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 04:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:+1
I like everything I see in this thread.
Also Blk Ops needs the ability to use Cov Ops cloaking devices.
I agree with the original post also, however I don't believe BLOPS needs a covert cloak. They're purpose is used as intended...for a way to jump a large group of cloaky ships into whatever the hell is on the other side.
Their primary purpose is not the all around damage entity that can cloak and give people heart attacks...that's what bombers are for. Each cloaky gains the cloak bonus at the expense of being a perfect ship...each has it's own purpose. Bombers for damage, recons for ewar, black ops to get people there, and covops to scan poor souls down.
Giving black ops a covert cloak will just remove the need for bombers all together, and you could just jump 10 BLOPS in and kill everything and disappear, with minimal risk vs reward. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 04:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 to the OP
I don't know how many times an ambush has been ruined due to random astroids or something else that I brush by when coming out of warp. I can account for almost everything but large collidable objects, they are a pain
No targeting recal on cloaking 5 would be amazing and it would be the only time that i finish cloaking to V
Local and Cloaky need to get divorced, there is nothing good that stems from a future together |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 05:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote: Local and Cloaky need to get divorced, there is nothing good that stems from a future together
Yes, this really is the number one issue for cloaking. Local Chat intel makes any sort of real sneaking about essentially impossible. My understanding is that Local's Intel functions and it's implications for gameplay was an oversight not a specific design decision by CCP, but somehow over the years it's become viewed as an actual feature, despite its clearly game breaking effects.
While I agree that removing cloaked ships from Local would be an obvious first step, I really think the better and fairer approach is to remove all player characters from Local regardless of ship type. Then improve DScan as the basic tool for intel and awareness. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 09:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Happy Festivus to all the cloakies, friends, and sneaky people, even the afk ones.
back on topic....
Do most Black ops pilots think their ships need CovOps cloaks? I was under the impression the boost they needed the most was having to use less fuel or be able to carry more, and having a slightly longer jump range. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 11:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Xorv wrote: * Only non cloaked vehicles and structures occupied or directly controlled by players should break a cloak. Piloted Ships, controlled drones, fighters, probes, POSes, and Stations etc. Not can spam, wrecks, and asteroids.
Strangely I'd say no to this, however I would like to see asteroids bump "zone" tweaked to match the model rather than extending a random distance. Weaving through/ around objects is part and parcel of running cloaked, and takes practice. I'm all for having to be extremely careful around objects.
Quote:* All CovOps ships gaining Bombers 0 targeting recalibration after de-cloaking. Either free or by an advanced Cloak Skill that requires Cloaking V.
This is a nice idea, particularly as an advanced skill that would reduce the delay to zero at level 5. Pilgrim pilot reporting in
Quote:* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan)
Yes, but only as part of a re-vamp of the whole d-scan/ probing mechanic. Death to local!
If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Jenshae Chiroptera
294
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 17:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
-1 learn to fly better. Ideas and stuff EVE - the game of sand castles, either building them or kicking them down. |
Heisenburg Certainty
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 20:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
ok so move into a -1.0 system at 5 am with no one on in your ****** 200mil recon pilots with mediocre skills, wait till prime time, find a 1 bil faciton bs in sanc, uncloak and point with no recalibration time and get a juice 1 bil kill....wtf is wrong with ppl...afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve, especially with the switch to truesec and you cant just upgrade systems, theres a reason its every null sec alliances policy to advise against ratting with an afk cloak in system, yea you can try to have a counter fleet but the hot drop chance makes it not worth ever undocking t2 or faction bs's, im not a carebear this is mostly a pvp game but PVE should at least have a chance and be somewhat balanced.
edit* cause cloaks to slowely consume fuel would help for one, disconnect from local is an option but then id have to argue for an increase in recalibration time |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 02:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:ok so move into a -1.0 system at 5 am with no one on in your ****** 200mil recon pilots with mediocre skills, wait till prime time, find a 1 bil faciton bs in sanc, uncloak and point with no recalibration time and get a juice 1 bil kill....wtf is wrong with ppl...afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve, especially with the switch to truesec and you cant just upgrade systems, theres a reason its every null sec alliances policy to advise against ratting with an afk cloak in system, yea you can try to have a counter fleet but the hot drop chance makes it not worth ever undocking t2 or faction bs's, im not a carebear this is mostly a pvp game but PVE should at least have a chance and be somewhat balanced.
edit* cause cloaks to slowely consume fuel would help for one, disconnect from local is an option but then id have to argue for an increase in recalibration time
If that alliance refuses to escort its pilots it deserves to lose its PVE. I'd argue they desrve to lose everything they may have as a resource including the pilots themselves. |
|
Heisenburg Certainty
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 05:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:Heisenburg Certainty wrote:ok so move into a -1.0 system at 5 am with no one on in your ****** 200mil recon pilots with mediocre skills, wait till prime time, find a 1 bil faciton bs in sanc, uncloak and point with no recalibration time and get a juice 1 bil kill....wtf is wrong with ppl...afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve, especially with the switch to truesec and you cant just upgrade systems, theres a reason its every null sec alliances policy to advise against ratting with an afk cloak in system, yea you can try to have a counter fleet but the hot drop chance makes it not worth ever undocking t2 or faction bs's, im not a carebear this is mostly a pvp game but PVE should at least have a chance and be somewhat balanced.
edit* cause cloaks to slowely consume fuel would help for one, disconnect from local is an option but then id have to argue for an increase in recalibration time If that alliance refuses to escort its pilots it deserves to lose its PVE. I'd argue they deserve to lose everything they may have as a resource including the pilots themselves.
its called a hotdrop tard and due to the cloaky in system they will always know how big your counter fleet can be while you have no iea how many they might be able to hot drop in on you, "escorting" is not effective |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 05:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Escorting can be quite effective, contrary to popular belief most bomber pilots fly solo for most of the time. There isn't always a full bomber fleet with black ops standing by waiting breathlessly to kill your ratting ship.
Having local be seperated from the bomber is also an easy solution to counter this. Then the ambusher doesn't know how many people lay in wait to kill him until he's sprung the trap, or uncloaks to check, but then he reveals himself.
I still support OP +1 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
2166
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 11:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve No and no, in that order.
The only one who can shut down an entire alliance's PvE is the alliance leader (and even then, he needs a lot of help from the alliance members).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3357
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 12:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Heisenburg Certainty wrote:ok so move into a -1.0 system at 5 am with no one on in your ****** 200mil recon pilots with mediocre skills, wait till prime time, find a 1 bil faciton bs in sanc, uncloak and point with no recalibration time and get a juice 1 bil kill....wtf is wrong with ppl...afk cloaking is a real issue one scrub in a recon shuts down an entire alliances pve, especially with the switch to truesec and you cant just upgrade systems, theres a reason its every null sec alliances policy to advise against ratting with an afk cloak in system, yea you can try to have a counter fleet but the hot drop chance makes it not worth ever undocking t2 or faction bs's, im not a carebear this is mostly a pvp game but PVE should at least have a chance and be somewhat balanced.
edit* cause cloaks to slowely consume fuel would help for one, disconnect from local is an option but then id have to argue for an increase in recalibration time How do they shut down PvE, whilst AFK? Also, what mechanic are they using to interact with you, whilst AFK?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 13:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
Xorv wrote:* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan) You call this a "minimal change", but it has a drastic effect on how much time and effort everyone has to put in just to enable some others to make some isk without losing their ship. In the end, it'd make more sense to just go do L4s or incursions in hisec to make isk, and keep the PVP char in null for PVP ops alone. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
795
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 13:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Xorv wrote:* Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan) You call this a "minimal change", but it has a drastic effect on how much time and effort everyone has to put in just to enable some others to make some isk without losing their ship. In the end, it'd make more sense to just go do L4s or incursions in hisec to make isk, and keep the PVP char in null for PVP ops alone.
You'll have to forgive the OP Zim. I don't think he subscribes to the concept that null space is supposed to be perfectly safe for the solo PvE fit ratting ship. The nerve of him. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
343
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:You'll have to forgive the OP Zim. I don't think he subscribes to the concept that null space is supposed to be perfectly safe for the solo PvE fit ratting ship. The nerve of him. I don't see anyone suggesting it should be perfectly safe. Unless, of course, you mean I can park any ship, anywhere in nullsec, right now and still come back to a ship 10 hours later and not a pod in a station. |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
In a game where you're already virtually blind, I don't think cloaks need any improvements really.
D-Scan does need a vast improvement. Automatic cycling instead of spamming the scan button, longer range, show the distance to the contact so you can deduce where it is, and show the corp/alliance of who is flying the ship along with a standings icon.
Local is still useful though, you want to watch it for when it spikes so I'd keep it, or make gate activation visible across the whole starsystem, maybe pulse the icon blue or something.
I don't care if there are modules or skills needed to improve dscan but it is in need of something. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 20:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote: You'll have to forgive the OP Zim. I don't think he subscribes to the concept that null space is supposed to be perfectly safe for the solo PvE fit ratting ship. The nerve of him.
That would be correct. More significantly I don't subscribe to the idea of PvP and PvE being completely separated from one another like in Themepark type MMOs. Reading between the lines that's what I see Lord Zim and other hostile posters supporting: That you PvE completely free from any real chance of PvP, then with the funds you made in PvE, you go PvP. Or put another way you go to work then with the money you earned you get to go on the roller-coaster ride. That isn't a Sandbox MMO and it isn't a PvP MMO, and EVE is supposed to be both.
Zim, by all means correct me if my assumptions are wrong about you and explain yourself, but my only other theories for you are that you're trolling or trying to protect income from PvP-phobic renters or something. You comments about High Sec lvl 4s or Incursions are irrelevant as I imagine almost everyone here asking for Local Intel removal would also favor addressing the completely out of balance Risk vs Reward that currently exists in High Sec. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 21:16:00 -
[20] - Quote
Xorv wrote:Zim, by all means correct me if my assumptions are wrong about you and explain yourself, but my only other theories for you are that you're trolling or trying to protect income from PvP-phobic renters or something. You comments about High Sec lvl 4s or Incursions are irrelevant as I imagine almost everyone here asking for Local Intel removal would also favor addressing the completely out of balance Risk vs Reward that currently exists in High Sec. I don't see why you think I'm trolling, since I'm not saying something which should come as a great surprise to anyone: add risk without adding reward, and people will leave. I also don't see why I should be protecting income from some "pvp-phobic renter", since we ... (dramatic drumroll) ... have none. I'm all for there being risk in nullsec (hint: there is. Ask anyone who's lost a station the past few months if there's risk in nullsec), but I'm not for there being so much risk as the "remove local", "delay local" or "remove cloaked ships from local" people wants there to be without a subsequent boost in profitability to match.
I've been vocal before about having incursions and to a certain extent L4s nerfed slightly to encourage people to move out to nullsec, because I want nullsec to be more populous than it is right now, if only because there'll be even more tears when we do go to burn it to the ground. But if you've been in any of the "nerf hisec incursions" threads, all you'll get is "wah wah wah them nullseccers just want to ruin the game so they can run their bots in peace" or the like. Good luck getting anything done in such a thread.
But please, tell me why you think I'm trolling when I'm being vocal against a change which'll drastically change the risk/reward ratio, to the point where hisec would be a much better place to go to actually earn ISK, and to actually make a system safe you'd have a lot of people expending a lot of time just staring at a gate or wormhole or sitting and waiting for something to happen, while someone else earns ISK. And whenever I've been supportive of any change which would make those changes more balanced (i.e. some give and take on both sides), it's shut down because of someone's precious wormholes would get a minor change. |
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 22:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Zim I didn't say you were trolling, only that it was a possibility, sorry you've got Goon underneath your name, makes one suspect ;). If you agree that PvE should not be free from non-consensual PvP then you might not be that far removed from the positions of many pro remove local people, at least in terms of intent. Nerf AFK cloaking vs Remove Local Intel is NOT a High Sec vs Null Sec debate... Many if not all of us that want to see Local go likely also support changes to High Sec to either make it much more dangerous or much less profitable.
As to risk of non-consensual PvP in Null Sec there is little in terms of the individual who is part of a large Sov holding alliance. You pay attention to Local and intel channels, then dock, hide in a POS, safespot and cloak, or log out if someone unknown enters your system. Returning to your PvE when they're gone. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
348
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 23:20:00 -
[22] - Quote
Of course I'm not saying PVE should be excempt from non-consensual PVP, I'm not ********. Nullsec is dangerous, and it should remain dangerous (even though some ******** **** will claim it's all rainbows and fairies up in nullsec). What I am against is the ******** idea that if you remove local, nullsec will become some sort of PVP heaven overnight, with no detrimental side-effect on the population that actually lives there.
If you actually want to remove local, or remove certain ships from local, then you'd better be prepared to either up the rewards heftily or watch nullsec depopulate. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if null'd depopulate a bit still even if rewards were upped heftily, because some carebears are wholly risk-adverse, but at least there'd be a chance others might be tempted. Ingvar can mutter and grumble as much as he'd like about how the people who would end up leaving "weren't supposed to be there anyways", but I'm going to maintain, and keep maintaining, that those people need to be there, if only just to be a target for roaming gangs, a gigantic source of tears when someone burns their entire space to the ground, and finally (and just as importantly) to make space actually appear not quite empty.
And when it comes to what you just said, "pay attention to local and intel channels", this is paramount. Nullsec is where players make the rules, and make up how secure the space is. The security out there is just as good as players make it, and you know as well as everyone that a few minutes' (or even seconds) inattentiveness at the wrong time can (and will) end up in a lossmail. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
Zim, you'll gain no argument from me that EVE needs serious attention from CCP in regards to Risk vs Reward Balance. However, in regard to risk adverse players leaving Null for High Sec, for PvE purposes that's already happened. High Sec mission alts have been popular for years, and Incursions has thrown that balance completely out the window.
When it comes to Local Chat Intel removal your sole and oft repeated objections is that Null will lose PvE types to High Sec. Irrespective of that already being the case the answer is simple. Logically your objection should melt away if Local Chat changes come hand in hand with High Sec changes.
* Remove Local Chat Intel and improve DScan. * Reverse the War Dec Nerfs. * Increase NPC corp Tax. * Remove Incursions from High Sec.
What's your objection now to Local Chat Intel removal Zim? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
360
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Never, ever, talk about removing incursions from hisec. They serve a fairly important function in teaching hisec people how to actually work in PVP-style gangs, without necessarily losing a ship. Tone down the rewards, sure, but don't ever talk about removing them. And I wish I could turn off the incursion chat channel popping up, because oh my god the SMSish bullshit that goes on in there is mindboggingly awful.
As to even toning down the rewards, there'll be a fucktonne of bitching about it if CCP does it, but I'd assume it'd be for the betterment of the game as a whole if it was. However, I do not have numbers to back that up, but I'd be highly for a migration of rewards to nullsec instead of hisec. Obviously.
I see no help in increasing NPC corp tax, my alts are in one corp to facilitate purchasing things all over the common markets when I see an opportunity for market ****. Yay corp wallets.
What nerfs would be reversed from the war decs?
How would dscan help in giving people a minute chance of getting out before they're pointed?
As to losing people to hisec, yes, we've lost a ton of people to hisec already based on anoms being nerfed, does it have to be proven yet again when risk is increased without reward being upped? |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 02:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
War Decs should go back to the pre Privateer War Dec nerf. Ultimately player organizations should be free to wage war on any other player organization without any restraint on numbers of wars or arbitrary fees. The only real costs should be costs from losses in waging the war.
In an ideal world I'd like to see Empire based players funneled into faction vs faction warfare. Sov. Null Sec but with player alliances replaced with NPC Factions. A little less Sandbox, but much more casual friendly. However, that would require a lot of work on CCPs part, so opening up the Wardecs and letting the players/sandbox sort it out is the next best thing.
Wardecs as they once were combined with significant increased taxation on non newbies in NPC corps will address your concern of players fleeing Nullsec to Empire to do their PvE.
As to Incursions, you may see some good in them, but to me the way they are implemented currently is a fetid taint on this game. PvE Raids insulated from PvP that **** on risk reward balance, lore, sandbox, roleplayers, and PvPers alike. Did all the the pre-Incursion EVE PvP gangs require PvE raid training beforehand? Of course not!
Changes to DScan is really where the sensible discussion should go regarding the removal of Local Chat Intel.. How should Intel work after Local chat is fixed? It really deserves it's own thread though. However, if you're of the opinion that players doing PvE making significant ISK should be immune to attack shy of seriously bad mistakes/stupidity then we will never agree. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
101
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 02:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
With people necroing AFK cloaker whine threads hell bent on making cloaking even worse in EVE than it already is, I figured it was time to resurrect this thread to discuss and share ideas that improve cloaking and sneaky gameplay in general. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
336
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 02:44:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: In the end, it'd make more sense to just go do L4s or incursions in hisec to make isk, and keep the PVP char in null for PVP ops alone. Except now a cloaked person that your corporation is at war with can enter local, cloak and warp to you while you are running missions without you having a chance to notice them in local. So not only is running missions in highsec better but running missions in highsec in an NPC corp or in a 1 man shell corp is better.
This change would require my corporation to disband and form a new corporation with a different name since checking local wouldn't even help you anymore. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
103
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:41:00 -
[28] - Quote
The fear people like Zim have with removing Local Chat Intel, is that will result in a further exodus to High Sec from Null.. I say further, because it's largely already happened... That boat has already sailed.
The solution isn't making Null safer to draw people back it's making High Sec much more dangerous and/or much less profitable. High Sec Incursions in particular need a colossal nerf, or better yet much needed player conflict added into the mix.
If there is to be PvE in areas that are effectively PvP free, the differential in reward with PvE in areas where PvP is a real possibility needs to be of a magnitude in the range of 500%+ not 40-50% or less.
Of course you also have Nullsec people with totally foolish notions that numbers should trump everything. Read what this guy says from one the AFK cloak whine threads.
Zawisza Black wrote: Waaahh, you're whining about an entire alliance coordinating effectively with intel, fleets, and smart playing. Join a big blob alliance and take over that sov if you want to destroy the economy so badly. To have it your way one person can safely diminish the efforts of an entire alliance - where's the logic in that?
Note that when he says "safely diminish the efforts of an entire alliance" he's referring to a single cloaker in a single star system not doing anything. That's totally ridiculous, how do alliances of people like that even manage to hold onto sov. space? |
CaleAdaire
0ne Percent. Transmission Lost
21
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:44:00 -
[29] - Quote
YOU SIR!!!!
HAVE HAD A GREAT F*****G IDEA!!! |
Ares Renton
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
Xorv wrote:With the return of more stupid afk cloaking whine threads, I figured a thread for those of us that would like to see features that improve cloaking would be nice for a change. * Only non cloaked vehicles and structures occupied or directly controlled by players should break a cloak. Piloted Ships, controlled drones, fighters, probes, POSes, and Stations etc. Not can spam, wrecks, and asteroids. * All CovOps ships gaining Bombers 0 targeting recalibration after de-cloaking. Either free or by an advanced Cloak Skill that requires Cloaking V. * Removing Cloaked ships from Local (This is the minimal change, but the better change would be to remove Local Chat Intel altogether benefiting all ship types and replace with an improved DScan) I know there's long been called for improvements for Black-Ops ships, but I'll let someone else that's more familiar with their use add good improvements for them.
There needs to be a way to detect cloaked ships besides the hilariously primitive method of bumping. I'm not talking about anything extreme here, but maybe something like a depth charge module that fits in a high slot. It would work like a smartbomb, and decloak anything in 10km.
This way, if you KNOW there is someone cloaked nearby, you can gank him, because he failed at his job of being stealthy. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |