EVE Search - Hunter class Destroyer

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Hunter class Destroyer

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.24 14:43:00 - [1] Edited by: Marlona Sky on 24/12/2009 14:52:01 New T2 destroy that gets ability to fit (also new) a probe launcher that can probe out ships fitting a cloaking device. Any ships with a covert ops cloaking device would still be un-probable. Either they would have the ablility to warp to them OR they can detonate the probe and it emits a pulse that decloaks them. These destroyers would also have a more combat oriented layout and bonuses for in your face combat and are not paper thin. Would take care of AFK cloakers and add a much needed full combat T2 destoyer to the ranks. Thoughts and comments?
Zeredek Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2009.12.24 14:46:00 - [2] Cloaks are fine _________________ rawr
Tacyon Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.24 14:58:00 - [3] Marlona - cool idea. Makes the "destroyer" more like a traditional destroyer. I like the detonating the probe to cause them to de-cloak twist. Maybe also a skill based reaction. Low skill level trained cloakers get a random % of detection (including covert lvl1). The higher a player trains that cloaking skill. The less likely that they'll be detected. My god .. it's full of stars !
King Rothgar Imperial Slave Hunter Society	Posted - 2009.12.24 15:40:00 - [4] A proper t2 combat destroyer would be nice and the ability to probe out a cloaker would be useful. That said this needs to be balanced by removing local as an intel tool. The whole point in afk cloaking is to gather a list of pilots in system, let your targets relax a little prior to attacking or just make all the carebears sit in station all day. Removing local removes the need for actual afk cloaking. Adding the ability to probe out a cloaked ship or decloak it at extended range (off grid) would go well with it. Really the whole cloaking and stealth mechanics need to be reworked. W-space is the only place where you can truly ambush someone with complete surprise. You should be able to do it everywhere. But you should also have to work a little harder to find out if someone is there to begin with and give the defender more options to see you coming without simply having a list of everyone in system. -----------------------------------------------------
Alanea Winddancer	Posted - 2009.12.24 17:52:00 - [5] Originally by: King Rothgar A proper t2 combat destroyer would be nice and the ability to probe out a cloaker would be useful. That said this needs to be balanced by removing local as an intel tool. The whole point in afk cloaking is to gather a list of pilots in system, let your targets relax a little prior to attacking or just make all the carebears sit in station all day. Removing local removes the need for actual afk cloaking. Adding the ability to probe out a cloaked ship or decloak it at extended range (off grid) would go well with it. Really the whole cloaking and stealth mechanics need to be reworked. W-space is the only place where you can truly ambush someone with complete surprise. You should be able to do it everywhere. But you should also have to work a little harder to find out if someone is there to begin with and give the defender more options to see you coming without simply having a list of everyone in system. This
Pan Dora Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.12.24 19:48:00 - [6] Edited by: Pan Dora on 24/12/2009 19:55:30 Complete removal of local its not possible,or rather will not be a improvment, without a serious boost for directinal scanner and probes. No local works in W-space because its a diferent enviorment (somewhat limited ascess, almost everyone have a probe launcher, etc), it wold be real mess in a high populated high-sec without better intel tools. Even if the local get fixed, scanning cloaked ship should remain impossible. Cloaks are meant to turn the ship invisible, not just taking a high slot to screw with targeting velocity and speed. _ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game.
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2009.12.24 22:12:00 - [7] On one hand, I'd really like to see local go the way of the dodo, and for cloaks to be defeatable somehow, but it would make the game harder and more time-consuming, not to mention the expense of dropping a probe or three in every system your fleet visits. I don't think a single, highly specialized anti-cloaking ship that launches probes and warps around uncloaked would be overpowered, since any decent cloaker would spot them on directional scan with minutes to spare before there was any danger, and playing EvE afk should be a death sentence. AFK cloaking is worse than autopilot to 0km in my book, it removes all danger and gives you a totally passive impact on your enemies. It hurts their economy, their morale and their security while you eat a sandwich ten miles away from your PC. Totally weak. This destroyer idea could help get that wrinkle out of the game. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
Pan Dora Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.12.24 23:01:00 - [8] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader AFK cloaking is worse than autopilot to 0km in my book, it removes all danger and gives you a totally passive impact on your enemies. It hurts their economy, their morale and their security while you eat a sandwich ten miles away from your PC. Totally weak. This destroyer idea could help get that wrinkle out of the game. Since all the whinne comes form the 'fact' the cloaker is AFK I have to ask: How you know he is AFK? How the game will know he is AFK instead of just watching? Because the ideia proposed there will make much more dificult to the person At The Keyboard to utilize cloak in his intended purposes. Also, You may dislike it but psicological warfare its working as intended. Someone jump in a recon, eat several sandwitchs then come back and do a negligible amount of damage to his target (like killing a single ratter{really irrelevant for a decent alliance}) and suddenly its like the mother of all capital fleet is camping the system. No one dare to undock, not even to warp to the gate and kill the rats in the next system. The AFK cloaker its not the problem, people passively watching he dominating an entery system single handed is. _ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game.
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2009.12.24 23:09:00 - [9] Originally by: Pan Dora Since all the whinne comes form the 'fact' the cloaker is AFK I have to ask: How you know he is AFK? How the game will know he is AFK instead of just watching? Because the ideia proposed there will make much more dificult to the person At The Keyboard to utilize cloak in his intended purposes. I know that they AFK cloak because I AFK cloak, too. A face in local with a few stealth bomber kills on his board and no ships on scan pretty much turns the mining off in that system, and I don't even have to be in the room. And the proposal, as it stands, presents almost zero threat to a player at the controls, since sitting there cloaked and running the directional scan will give you ages to react to the presence of a probe or one of these new destroyer hulls, so you can lead them around and make them waste their probes and maybe smacktalk a little if you're so inclined, without ever being in real danger. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
w1ndstrike Trans-Aerospace Industries	Posted - 2009.12.24 23:57:00 - [10] I don't have a stance on the removing local issue, but this idea would make it hard(ish) for the defenders to find a switched-on covops pilot, but would mean that anyone who wanted to disrupt another alliance/corp/whatevers economy would have to take an active role in doing so rather than just having lunch (and create a mini-proffession for those who want to operate stealth fleets to do precisely this on a per-hire basis)

Pan Dora Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.12.25 00:04:00 - [11] Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader I know that they AFK cloak because I AFK cloak, too. In other words: you use the analises the habits of a limited group of 1 pilot to make a educated guess that everyone else that use a cloak is AFK. Sorry, but this show that you AFK cloak but dont give any information about anyone else. However I will rephrase my question to make more clear: can you see any diference between someone AFK and someone at the keyboard, both cloaked and safespoted, just with the information the game give you? No you dont see any, nor the game see any if the pilot at the keyboard is just watching the undock point 200km away (whille his target assemble a 50 man strong gang one more time and foolish expect he decloak) Quote: A face in local with a few stealth bomber kills on his board and no ships on scan pretty much turns the mining off in that system, and I don't even have to be in the room. If a hostile HAC enter local your corp go mine in the belts? When a hostile fleet its taking down you cynojammer your corp call for mining OPS? Quote: And the proposal, as it stands, presents almost zero threat to a player at the controls, since sitting there cloaked and running the directional scan will give you ages to react to the presence of a probe or one of these new destroyer hulls, so you can lead them around and make them waste their probes and maybe smacktalk a little if you're so inclined, without ever being in real danger. Someone warping around cant wait for a target in belt 3, or watch undock point. The intended use of the cloaking device is gone, the cloaker its not invisible anymore. It may not threat the hit point of his ship but but threat his ability to not revel himselfe until he find a good oportunity. _ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game.
Rhinanna Minmatar Volition Cult The Volition Cult	Posted - 2009.12.25 01:01:00 - [12] Excellent idea, much like the submarine hunting boats of modern warfare. Cloaks ships should be able to stay invisable to pass a gate camp. Cloaks shouldn't be powerful enough to make you completly invunverable while AFK in the middle of an enemy system. Thats just silly...... This system would mean anyone who is afk can be caught, anyone at keyboard can't. Also makes a cloaker's life while trying to stay in a single system more intresting as he can't just sit in one spot recounting the local channel. -The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it. Drenzul (My normal internet tag)
Reggie Stoneloader JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative	Posted - 2009.12.25 02:32:00 - [13] Originally by: Pan Dora : can you see any diference between someone AFK and someone at the keyboard, both cloaked and safespoted, just with the information the game give you? Your logic is catastrophically flawed, and I think you misunderstood me. There's no reason to be able to catch and kill a cloaking pilot who is at the wheel and working to stay undetected. An active player using a cloaking device to do work is not broken, it is an effective and legitimate tactic, and it would not be meaningfully threatened by the suggested feature. AFK cloaking is the practice of creating the persistent illusion of an active cloaker in the system, and it is an overpowered and obnoxious way to harass enemies without doing work, taking risks or even playing the game. It is unique in that role, and the incongruity and cheapness of the tactic rankles badly. Quote: If a hostile HAC enter local your corp go mine in the belts? When a hostile fleet its taking down you cynojammer your corp call for mining OPS? You can't be that stupid. A HAC or a siege or any other incursion can be met appropriately, with a reasonable hope of defeating or chasing off the foe. The options available in the face of a cloaked ship are to either pretend they aren't there and risk a cynodrop/stealth bomber/force recon/blackops attack, or to put forth considerable resources on a wild goose chase that has next to no chance of having a real effect. Quote: Someone warping around cant wait for a target in belt 3, or watch undock point. The intended use of the cloaking device is gone, the cloaker its not invisible anymore. It may not threat the hit point of his ship but but threat his ability to not revel himselfe until he find a good oportunity. If your cloaked ships are on missions that cannot be completed if they have to leave a grid for thirty seconds a day, then set some bookmarks and warp 400km every few minutes while there's a hunter or countercloak probe on your directional scanner. An effective CobOps pilot can easily outmaneuver the hunter ship as it's described here with a modi***of savvy and attention. Heck, even if you're too dumb to use the scanner, the enemy ship would have to be on the grid, on your overview, before they could do anything to uncloak or harm you. These things can't warp cloaked, after all. So when there's a hostile in local and reason to believe that they're cloaked, you deploy the Hunter and look for him. If he's AFK, then you find him and you kill him. If he's not afk, then you spend about half an hour looking, then give up and deal with the fact that there's a potentially dangerous cloaked hostile active in your system. The key word here, of course, is active*. If local could be removed as an intel tool, of course, it would solve the problem as well, since an inactive cloaker that doesn't show up in local chat would not have the psychological impact, and the tactic would stop being used. ====================== Crusades: Security Status
Grarr Wrexx	Posted - 2009.12.25 14:36:00 - [14] Cloaking is fine, but you knowing that we're there isn't.
Xtover Suicide Kings	Posted - 2009.12.25 17:10:00 - [15] Although I love cloaky ships, I like the idea of a destroyer that can probe to a 250km grid, and throw out some decloaking pulses. Quote: The destroyer's initial purpose was to protect against torpedo boats, but navies soon appreciated the flexibility of the fast, multi-purpose vessel that resulted. Vice-Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker laid down destroyer duties for the Royal Navy:[11] Screening the advance of a fleet when hostile torpedo craft are about Searching a hostile coast along which a fleet might pass Watching an enemy's port for the purpose of harassing his torpedo craft and preventing their return Attacking an enemy fleet More reading on the purpose of a destroyer Honestly, a BALANCED destroyer would be extremely useful with the prevalence of stealth bombers and recons. It would be an excellent way to maintain a diverse fleet of ships and prevent what is becoming "cloaking online" benefits: - counter to SB squads without having to fit EXCLUSIVELY for it - counter to ISK farmer ratting/macros that are geared to warp+cloak once local goes above 1 - counter to cloaking capships and supercaps - create a usefulness to destroyers now that HICs and eventually AFs will remove their purpose The limitations would need to be: - The pulse is a separate weapon designed only for the destroyer - The probes would not give a "warp to" result - The pulse would be AoE and unguided like a bomb, and perhaps only have a 20km diameter Scenario: AFK cloaker in system, or even an active ship. Destroyer probes the grid and small gang warps to grid. Destroyer sends out pulse "depth charges" with a RoF of maybe 10s. A recon or SB has plenty of time to warp out. an AFK cloaker won't. Scenario 2: SB gang is making runs on your battleship fleet. Several decloak early, and you quickly turn and fire a pulse towards the gang, hopefully exposing more. since you're a destroyer you are anti-frig and able to take down several before or even after the bomb run. Other than a PG and maybe CPU bonus, the ship should remain fragile. I am AGAINST the pulses being interdictive, but perhaps even allow these pulses and probes on a standard dictor?
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.25 19:13:00 - [16] Could use more feedback on this and from other players on their ideas and thoughts.
Pan Dora Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2009.12.25 19:29:00 - [17] Edited by: Pan Dora on 25/12/2009 19:30:22 Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader Your logic is catastrophically flawed, and I think you misunderstood me. You tactics to ignore my arguments on the other hand are very good. And the way you avoid to answer my question about why a active pilot must be limited by anti-AFK mesures are brilhant. Quote: An active player using a cloaking device to do work is not broken, it is an effective and legitimate tactic, and it would not be meaningfully threatened by the suggested feature. That is why the possibility to hide information from his target must remain inaltered. do you really notice how the pilot AFK pretending to be active cause fear in their target but fail to notice how the active pilot get their target because they think he is AFK? Quote: A HAC or a siege or any other incursion can be met appropriately, with a reasonable hope of defeating or chasing off the foe. There are mesures to counter cloaker also, the stupid part its that some people ask CCP to dumb down the game instead to use that measures. Hint: its not ignoring the presence of the hostile pilot and go mining without protection a few km away form his ship is. Ignoring an hostile pilot its the dumbest thing someone can do in 0.0. Quote: If your cloaked ships are on missions that cannot ... See how that its diferent from 'keep the cloak on'? keeping the cloak on its the intended way to be invisible. Quote: The key word here, of course, is active no, the keyword is HOSTILE Quote: If local could be removed as an intel tool, of course, it would solve the problem as well, since an inactive cloaker that doesn't show up in local chat would not have the psychological impact, and the tactic would stop being used. Dont be naive, with the removal of local as intel tool a similar tactic will start to be used. Instead of whinnes about AFK cloaker we will see whinnes about login-gank-logout, just a diferent way to exploit the false sense of security some people feel in their 'secure 0.0'. The ideia of secure 0.0 its what is wrong with AFK cloaker whinners. high-sec! _ I like to play this game because it make my in-game actions and archievments to mean something in-game.
Tavren Darknigh The-Defiant Allegiance 2 None	Posted - 2009.12.26 02:48:00 - [18] Edited by: Tavren Darknigh on 26/12/2009 02:50:24 Originally by: Pan Dora Instead of whinnes about AFK cloaker we will see whinnes about login-gank-logout This tactic actually has been deemed an exploit and is a ban worthy offense. as for the topic at hand I could see the "pulse" being sort of a dictor sphere say 5-10km around the ship, pretty much just changing the decloak distance of the hunter. mind flashes at 6-7 hunters orbiting a BC at 10km :) That would get me to train destroyer 5 in a heartbeat... well train destroyers period.
Mocam	Posted - 2009.12.26 06:17:00 - [19] Good idea for getting rid of all scouting/covert ops in the game. You envision this for 1 task yet it would be used to eliminate the value of cloaks across the game and still wouldn't prevent your problem. Fly to a system, click off towards never-never land, give it a bit of time then stop the ship and go AFK. Cloaked or not, if you're "off the grid" while still in local, you'll have the same effect so it will only shift where they choose to park. Name the gate camp that wouldn't bring one of these-- it'd be as common as webifiers and scramblers. -------------------- Here's a counter idea. Allow ships to deploy their drones in formations versus just orbit. Also enable ships to form up formations and the ability to maintain them for sweeps. A mother ship could deploy all 25 drones into a 20km x 20km grid for that purpose. For frigate class sweeps -- a gang of worms could form up one hell of a lot of grid space with 5 small drones each and a rather respectable clip for checking areas out. It still has the potential for a lot of problems -- setting formations of drones at gate camps, etc... but a lot less than the impact of a ship with the ability to probe down cloaked ships, which pretty close to eliminates the abilities of ships specifically designed for cloak operations. Sorry if it's less a "sit on your but and click the button from 100% safety" but it'd get the job done with a bit of coordinated effort -- or solo with bigger ships.
Haxfar Portlaind	Posted - 2009.12.26 10:39:00 - [20] Originally by: Xtover Although I love cloaky ships, I like the idea of a destroyer that can probe to a 250km grid, and throw out some decloaking pulses. Quote: The destroyer's initial purpose was to protect against torpedo boats, but navies soon appreciated the flexibility of the fast, multi-purpose vessel that resulted. Vice-Admiral Sir Baldwin Walker laid down destroyer duties for the Royal Navy:[11] Screening the advance of a fleet when hostile torpedo craft are about Searching a hostile coast along which a fleet might pass Watching an enemy's port for the purpose of harassing his torpedo craft and preventing their return Attacking an enemy fleet More reading on the purpose of a destroyer Honestly, a BALANCED destroyer would be extremely useful with the prevalence of stealth bombers and recons. It would be an excellent way to maintain a diverse fleet of ships and prevent what is becoming "cloaking online" benefits: - counter to SB squads without having to fit EXCLUSIVELY for it - counter to ISK farmer ratting/macros that are geared to warp+cloak once local goes above 1 - counter to cloaking capships and supercaps - create a usefulness to destroyers now that HICs and eventually AFs will remove their purpose The limitations would need to be: - The pulse is a separate weapon designed only for the destroyer - The probes would not give a "warp to" result - The pulse would be AoE and unguided like a bomb, and perhaps only have a 20km diameter Scenario: AFK cloaker in system, or even an active ship. Destroyer probes the grid and small gang warps to grid. Destroyer sends out pulse "depth charges" with a RoF of maybe 10s. A recon or SB has plenty of time to warp out. an AFK cloaker won't. Scenario 2: SB gang is making runs on your battleship fleet. Several decloak early, and you quickly turn and fire a pulse towards the gang, hopefully exposing more. since you're a destroyer you are anti-frig and able to take down several before or even after the bomb run. Other than a PG and maybe CPU bonus, the ship should remain fragile. I am AGAINST the pulses being interdictive, but perhaps even allow these pulses and probes on a standard dictor? I like this. IMO you should make a new thread about this idea.

Valharu	Posted - 2009.12.26 15:15:00 - [21] I brought this up a long time ago about the Destroyer and its nice to see it revisited. Its a great Idea and the intended argument never really works because if you add the Destroyer with these abilities then it to is working as intended. The intent can always be changed. But lets look at this in some different ways. Lets say we make a Destroyer that is "Inteded" to detect cloaked ships, lets look more into that. There is a difference between "Detecting" a Cloaked ship and "Revealing" a Cloaked ship. If it was me, I would build a Destroyer to Detect Cloaked ships in two fashions. One by Probe and seconded by Modual. Both would have the same purpose but but one is centered on the ship and the other on the probe. Now either one would be able Detect a cloaked ship but then the Destroyer would actualy have to warp or high speed it out to it and shoot the cloaked ship to actually Reveal it to the rest of the Fleet so that way, the Destroyer pilot has to actually get out there and do some actualy work instead of just relying on a pulse to Reveal it and let everyone just snipe it. Now the Probe is pretty self explanitory but the Modual on the Destroyer will actually take some thought. Realisticly 20 KM'r is nothing considering how much space there is. And if you take into account that you are only Detecting the Cloaked ship and Not Revealing it till you Actually get to it and shoot it, you can widen the pulse greatly and actually give it a fall off and let it work just like the Target Painter where as the fall off either works at that moment or doesnt. So you could have a 50KMr opt with 25KM Falloff. So just because you Detect a Cloaked ship, dosnt actually mean everyone also has a free ride to shoot it till YOU actually Reveal it through your own weapons fire. This way you can still make a prefectly viable combat Destroyer but it may have to gimp its weapon load out some if it wants to act as a Screener for Cloaked ships. The idea is not to make Cloaked ships obsolete but to turn it into the Original Cloaking ideas Inteneded purpose and recreate the Cat and Mouse game of old. Where Cloaker and Screener don't have a free ride but have to work at doing their jobs.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.26 16:09:00 - [22] Originally by: Mocam Good idea for getting rid of all scouting/covert ops in the game. You are forgetting that I said that the pulse probe would not affect ships that have a Covert Ops cloaking device on. So it is not getting rid of scouting and such. I will bold that on my OP so people keep that in mind.
Valharu	Posted - 2009.12.27 15:48:00 - [23] There is nothing wrong about using it vs Cov Ops Cloak, its just how you go about it. Now a days its not just Cov Ops ships that use it, but Bombers and T3 Ships which I predict will become a potent PVP Gurilla force in the future as people are willing to spend the money on them. Its just how you go about it, there is a big difference between Detecting Cloaks and Revealing them and they won't be revealed till a Destroyer can close on them and bust their Cloak. Which always gives them time to run and avoid the insta pop from snipers.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.29 08:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Valharu This way you can still make a prefectly viable combat Destroyer but it may have to gimp its weapon load out some if it wants to act as a Screener for Cloaked ships. Well I am not sure if fitting something to decloak/warp to a cloaked target should gimp your firepower. Also I am not sure if you are saying that if they have a covert ops cloak fit that people should be able to detect/find/decloak them or not. I would prefer that they can not be interfered with if they are cloaked. I am more interested in those with standard cloaks on.
Typhado3 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.29 11:55:00 - [25] My problem with cloaking. You cannot actively go after the enemy. If they hide in a pos you can blow up the pos if their in a station you can even disable their services or camp the station. Cloaking is an extremely cheap option that offers basically docking level safety that follows you around. It can be done by any ship in the game. Cloaking as a profession with ships specialized in it is one thing. But any ship in the game can easily get the main advantage of cloaking. It's like every ship being able to fit a bomb launcher or a hic bubble. We now have a lot of squishy ppl working in a single system with dominion. Ships like hulks just can't defend themselves against something like a bs. stealthbombers and recons can be defended against for a reasonable cost but a couple bs's can do a suicide run on hulks quite cost efectively and it's gonna take a lot more than a coupe squishy falcons to stop them. ------------------------------ God is AFK, I am not
Napro Caldari Galactic Space Corps	Posted - 2009.12.29 13:56:00 - [26] Originally by: Pan Dora Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader AFK cloaking is worse than autopilot to 0km in my book, it removes all danger and gives you a totally passive impact on your enemies. It hurts their economy, their morale and their security while you eat a sandwich ten miles away from your PC. Totally weak. This destroyer idea could help get that wrinkle out of the game. Since all the whinne comes form the 'fact' the cloaker is AFK I have to ask: How you know he is AFK? How the game will know he is AFK instead of just watching? Because the ideia proposed there will make much more dificult to the person At The Keyboard to utilize cloak in his intended purposes. I think itd be easy for anyone watching the screen to realize their ship has been uncloaked..:]
Kilostream Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.29 15:13:00 - [27] Hmmm - I think I can partly support elements of this idea. First off I don't think cloaked ships should ever be probe-able - covert ops class ships are designed to be able to operate in a covert environment and pay a hefty price over their non-covert ops counterparts in the form of reduced offensive capabilities. Non-covert ops ships fitted with cloaks also pay a penalty by having massive scan res reduction and targetting delay - anyone but the most stoned of stoned NPC'ers will be able to get away. As for the complaints about people hanging around cloaked - it has a name - it's called a force multiplier, and is a recognised tactic employed by the military - snipers will set up shop and conceal themselves around various target locations, taking pot-shots at targets. After a while people realise that their colleagues and comrades are randomly dropping dead from the unseen enemy attacks and their operations become disrupted - it doesn't matter that the sniper is eating a sandwich, or asleep or whatever, he could still be active and therefore the enemy is forced to behave as if he still is. However, I'd support the idea of a ship with increased chance to decloak enemies when it is known they are around - perhaps something like a HICtor bubble that dramatically increases the signature radius of the ship so that the ship effectively becomes enormous - this could decloak ships lurking around gates / station undocks and the like. The obvious down side being that it becomes very easy to target and large-calibre weaponry would become more able to strike it.
Oli Robbo Gallente Entity.	Posted - 2009.12.29 15:47:00 - [28] they're called cloaking devices for a reason [hint] its in the name..
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.12.29 22:31:00 - [29] Originally by: Oli Robbo they're called cloaking devices for a reason [hint] its in the name.. Your missing the point here.
Marlona Sky D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2010.01.30 12:33:00 - [30] N-N-N-N-NECRO!!!



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE 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 EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online 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, EVE-Search.com. 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.