Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
GuRasta
Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 20:41:00 -
[151] - Quote
With all due respect I believe alot of you don't know what you're talking about, removing local is not the solution, players that worked there way from a newb to high sec missioner to low sec pvp then out to null sec warfare/pve with faction bs's sitting in hangers should be allowed to use them. Removing local is NOT the answer, red jumps in system dscans gets the 2-3 sancs in systems warps to and has a faction bs pointed in 30 secs never appearing on local? are you guys nuts?
-Null sec was changed, no longer can an alliance just upgrade 4 systems in a row, requiring 4 afk cloakers to bring ALL of an alliances PVE to a halt, it takes 1 since there are only sancs in low enough true sec systems which are sparse
-It is standard practice to just not rat when a cloaker is in system, wether active or not, and the dedicated eve players with mach and mares would feel jipped to jump in a mael or baddon to rat just because of an afk cloaker, personally I just log off
-After logging on many times with the inention of playing eve, but finding system camped an no easy pvp options i just change my skills and log off, its getting frustrating, getting set up in a -1.0 system with a faction battleship, you should be allowed to rat more often than not and actually play this game
-THE FIX: Require cloaks to consume "liquid nitrogen" for instance to cool "your thermal signature", afk cloaks would eventually run out and would not be able to sit in a system for days on in, coming back at the oddest hours just to look for a target, this should present almost no problem to non afk cloakers, if they need to be gone that long just log off
I think this would be a MUCH better system, and would still allow cloaky camping while not frustrating people who want to high end pve, which is almost non existant now in this game for many alliances(our system is afk cloaked literally 20-25 days a month) |
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 20:46:00 -
[152] - Quote
Wormhole space if cloaks were detectable at all due this will become COMPLETELY safe. Just launch one and spam the scan, you will never get ganked again while ratting. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:12:00 -
[153] - Quote
As that other topic to give life, liberty, and endless kills to AFK cloakers is still going I would like to again bump this as a counter to that.
Also to the BS about alliances don't "need" afk cloaking. AFK cloaking was a central function of the alliance we were blue to. And their targets weren't bots they were active players. For free kills.
The only thing I have lost from an AFK cloaker is a salvage destroyer so this topic was not made in 2 mins after losing a mach or rattlesnake. This topic was made after reading countless undetailed ideas for dealing with AFK cloaking and the few detailed ones were often a big stealth boost instead of a rebalance. (Removing a cloaker from local.. Seriously?)
Or were just the usual BS "Remove local so I can get mah fr33 killz!" topics.
Jack Tronic wrote:Wormhole space if cloaks were detectable at all due this will become COMPLETELY safe. Just launch one and spam the scan, you will never get ganked again while ratting.
Not if the cloaker is warping in and out which resets his grid timer and thus does not show on the scanner. |
Bearilian
Man Eating Bears
55
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 23:03:00 -
[154] - Quote
most everyone arguing to keep cloaking the same are those exploiting it. which if anything is the main reason we may not see a change in this area, because ccp is to scared to upset the masses.
but when it comes down to it, cloaking makes no sense at all. everything else about eve follows a reletively sensible logic. and yes we have stealth bombers, but no they are not invisible. cloaking is closer to the technological breakthoughs that allowed t3 ships and their advanced substructures, yet every ship with a high slot can go invisible. it makes complete sense that there would be some form of scanning techology that would be able to track down a cloaked ship. we can find black holes in space, by process of elimination, gravitational pulls and negative space (not an astronomer but know its possible).
and to anyone who tries arguing that afk'ing is a good thing, you have another thing coming. is it not clear that ccp wants to fight afking as much as possible. the motto's of eve are defined by the risk of flying your ship. being docked in a station, should be your "only" safe spot.
now, as far as the OP goes, i dont think it should be so easy. or rather, i dont think you should require a cloakie to warp away to be safe. there was a post that suggested a more involved form of tracking, where if the cloaker was not afk they could swerve around to avoid being pinpointed.
and to the people who were saying they should be able to "spy" on the enemy. thats the weakest argument i have ever heard throughout any post ever... where in all of existance did the spying carreer get so stupid easy??? to be a spy, you should be really good at what you do, and it should take actual skill to blend in or stay hidden. because the enemy does have dogs that they will sniff you out with.
the simple solution would be to completely disconnect the cloaking ship with the chat channels. because that is a form of transmission, and any transmission is tracable. yes this would include private, fleet and corp chats as well. because again, every form of comunication would be a tracable transmission....... oh i cant wait to hear people try to argue that one(stubborn lazy people incapable of adapting)....
its like a kid with a lolipop that fell on the ground, you know you should take it away, but its not gona forgive you for it... |
Jask Avan
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 23:53:00 -
[155] - Quote
Bearilian wrote:most everyone arguing to keep cloaking the same are those exploiting it. which if anything is the main reason we may not see a change in this area, because ccp is to scared to upset the masses. And you're obviously either a coward or have a bunch of bots disrupted by AFK-cloaking. See? I can make bullshit arguments too. (I'm a high-sec marketeer/industrialist, btw. I don't even have cloaking skills trained.)
Bearilian wrote:the simple solution would be to completely disconnect the cloaking ship with the chat channels. because that is a form of transmission, and any transmission is tracable. yes this would include private, fleet and corp chats as well. because again, every form of comunication would be a tracable transmission....... oh i cant wait to hear people try to argue that one(stubborn lazy people incapable of adapting).... Those can easily be circumvented by out-of-game tools. Local not so much. (I don't actually care, just noting removing those wouldn't change anything.) |
mocrt
Krait Corp Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 00:29:00 -
[156] - Quote
Guys
Just my thoughts on this.
Read many posts about...what's the problem? There isn't a problem. And your point is? etc...
So here goes.
No one does anything in game honestly, without a reason. Be it, docking to buy a module, traveling to a belt to shoot rats etc.
When a neut / red etc enters a system which is obviously mostly static with blues ice mining etc etc, the reason why the neut stays there for hours on end cloaked isn't for Intel (from a non-staging mining system), it's to grief, deny security and potentially attack a hulk at a belt etc.
We've had this all along about 'if he's AFK...what you worrying about'? comments all day / week / year / forever long. The key for the defender is that he doesn't know if the target is AFK AND HAS NO WAY TO PUT THIS TO THE TEST.
He cannot do ANYTHING to test this. You could say, he could warp to a belt in a massive juicy hauler or hulk and paint a big red bulls eye on his ship...but at ANY time, the cloaked neut can warp to a belt, point, attack or drop a cyno.
The advantage is ALWAYS with the cloaked player. He can strike at any time of his choosing. OR, as most do, sit there and provide threat (I remind you of my first point...generally people do things for a reason). The reason of sitting in a system is to provide threat and allow for an opportunity (at their choosing) to engage.
Currently, anyone in that system can do the following:
1. Suck it up and sit in station letting their mining kit rust. 2. Call in some friends and arrange a bait. Go mining (and HOPE) that the guy cloaked is NOT AFK and may, hopefully decide to take a chance...pew pew fun) 3. Decide to seek out the cloaked ship by....oh wait...by...oh yes...doing the square root of jack all because if he's cloaked you ain't doing nothing to smoke him out. If he wants to play (and is NOT AFK) he might...else choose option 1.
So, if there is a method to provide a SMALL amount of risk to the cloaked to NOT go AFK but stay active...then all the better.
Mo |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
92
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 04:30:00 -
[157] - Quote
This is what my idea does. It gives the small amount of risk needed to balance out the abuse of the cloaking system. It is flexible in its adaption and directly targets the incentive to go AFK while cloaked. Players should not get to come back after a day at the pool or a night at the movies to a free solo kill or hotdrop simply because they have a running module in hostile territory.
It once may have been a tool of small potatoes to inflict effect on larger entities but these days it is the large alliances using it to soften up territory by inflicting free reduction in funds and mins to buy and build ships for good defense. You can deny this all you want but I have seen it for myself.
|
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 04:49:00 -
[158] - Quote
mocrt wrote:Currently, anyone in that system can do the following:
1. Suck it up and sit in station letting their mining kit rust. 2. Call in some friends and arrange a bait. Go mining (and HOPE) that the guy cloaked is NOT AFK and may, hopefully decide to take a chance...pew pew fun) 3. Decide to seek out the cloaked ship by....oh wait...by...oh yes...doing the square root of jack all because if he's cloaked you ain't doing nothing to smoke him out. If he wants to play (and is NOT AFK) he might...else choose option 1.
So, if there is a method to provide a SMALL amount of risk to the cloaked to NOT go AFK but stay active...then all the better.
Mo
There are a lot more options then those three, but most people choose #3 out of laziness.
I've both caught many 'AFK' Cloakers and been caught as an 'AFK' Cloaker. The inventive ways that I've seen are amazing, people just have to think, and think hard about real game mechanics. The answers become quite clear, that even if you don't catch the AFK cloaker, you can make his life, when he is active, a living hell of what to expect next.
Think outside of the box within the context of the game mechanics and the answers become quite clear.
Edit: Most of my best carebearing was done with an AFK Cloaker in system as all the good anoms weren't being hogged. Never lost a ship to a single one. |
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp Talocan United
811
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 05:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This is what my idea does. It gives the small amount of risk needed to balance out the abuse of the cloaking system. It is flexible in its adaption and directly targets the incentive to go AFK while cloaked. Players should not get to come back after a day at the pool or a night at the movies to a free solo kill or hotdrop simply because they have a running module in hostile territory.
It once may have been a tool of small potatoes to inflict effect on larger entities but these days it is the large alliances using it to soften up territory by inflicting free reduction in funds and mins to buy and build ships for good defense. You can deny this all you want but I have seen it for myself.
It nerfs the crap out of the risk in wormhole space by breaking cloaks, allowing a ridiculous level of safety that's unwanted and unneeded. Six months in the hole... it changes a man. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 05:47:00 -
[160] - Quote
So you were lucky enough not to be hotdropped. So what?
And living hell? How much does a really good SB fit cost? 20-30M at the most? You die you replace it in less than an hour from your money making main. Or more likely the alliance pays you back for your help driving that small alliance out.
That tankable hulk you pinned and destroyed? 500M that group of ships spider tanking an anom? More than that hulk.
Funny thing is the AFK cloakers have every advantage here including cost. You manage to bait them by wasting hours and they will just be back the next day. Or maybe sooner if they are mad.
My idea will help balance that. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 05:51:00 -
[161] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This is what my idea does. It gives the small amount of risk needed to balance out the abuse of the cloaking system. It is flexible in its adaption and directly targets the incentive to go AFK while cloaked. Players should not get to come back after a day at the pool or a night at the movies to a free solo kill or hotdrop simply because they have a running module in hostile territory.
It once may have been a tool of small potatoes to inflict effect on larger entities but these days it is the large alliances using it to soften up territory by inflicting free reduction in funds and mins to buy and build ships for good defense. You can deny this all you want but I have seen it for myself.
It nerfs the crap out of the risk in wormhole space by breaking cloaks, allowing a ridiculous level of safety that's unwanted and unneeded.
Correction. It is breaking YOUR cloak method that requires you to be able to enjoy a hot bath or night at the movies (Go ahead and claim you are watching the hole like a hawk that I simply wont believe) Uncloak, kill, get your solo kill or be baited and have to refit your cheap ass ship and come back later. If in nullsec you get your billions victory from a hotdrop.
The "safety" comes because you don't want to be active. Don't want to spend the 15 secs logging in and recloaking the moment you appear. Yes you now have a single disadvantage! A new feeling I bet. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 07:29:00 -
[162] - Quote
Initially, as the idea was presented, I rather liked it. I see a lot of dissent here though.
The part I liked was the pinging idea, though I think it needs to be balanced a great deal.
Here's how I would make it work, based on the OPs idea.
Make them specific probes with small scan ranges of 0.125 to 1 AU, so they only become practical to use when attempting to locate cloakers within a relatively small area. This also eliminates the restriction against afk cloaking for the most part, as ships may move to a reasonable distnce from any celestial and be virtually immune to any attempts to locate them outside of very determined individuals.
Change the message to a literal ping. Pop-ups are boring and mostly annoying reminders that serve to sever players from immersion.
Modify the probe cycle to 20 seconds or higher. Nobody wants to wait a minute to recycle their probes for fear of falling asleep while they're at it. Final probe cycle time is still dependent on skills of course.
Require a minimum number of probes to overlap the area which guards the cloaked vessel. Perhaps 3 or 4.
Prevent the probes from disrupting the cloak. It can be argued that there is a mass limit on what will effectively decloak a ship, and probes fall under that requirement. Nobody needs to be decloaked by a probe anyway.
Finally, only a pilot with max. probing skills and best equipment should be able to find a cloaked vessel by this method, and then only if they really are good. This eliminates casual decloaks by just anyone from occuring, and restricts the task to only those with the hardware and skill to do so. Location of a cloaked vessel only gives a result of a warp point within the vicinity of the last known position, as of the completed cycle of the probes. It may be anywhere from 20-30 kms off target, or even more.
This results in a limitation: cloaking is still only subject to the same rules for decloaking that have always applied.
Plenty of time is offered for pilots to become aware of the problem and leave the area, provided they are paying attention.
Intel gathering is a reward in itself; it shouldn't come without at least a little risk. |
Jaigar
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe Transmission Lost
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 07:33:00 -
[163] - Quote
I'm not even reading the weekly AFK cloaker whine anymore. The issue is local providing instant and free intel, not the cloaks. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 09:02:00 -
[164] - Quote
Ingvar Angst wrote:It nerfs the crap out of the risk in wormhole space by breaking cloaks, allowing a ridiculous level of safety that's unwanted and unneeded. And of course, your idea is the epitome of balance. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
100
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 10:22:00 -
[165] - Quote
It is not a direct nerf on cloaking as say a fuel bay would. It targets the incentive to AFK for hours on end. And is adaptable so CCP can play with the timing to find what works best.
I call that balance. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
3406
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 12:40:00 -
[166] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:It is not a direct nerf on cloaking as say a fuel bay would. It targets the incentive to AFK for hours on end. And is adaptable so CCP can play with the timing to find what works best.
I call that balance. Would you care to answer the question yet?
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. |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 12:49:00 -
[167] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:This isn't just Ingvar hiding in his "hole" somewhere. If you are or were in nullsec recently you will see it has become an epidemic. People in alliance chat asking for plex to do AFK cloaking on alts for petes sakes.
The incentive has to go. And removing local wont do that. Just give more incentive to AFK cloak to do real damage against those weaker than the huge alliances in game.
Removing local WILL remove the incentive to AFK Cloak. Because there is no reason to AFK cloak if nobody knows you are there. (AFK cloaking is purely about frightening 0.0 bunnies into not leaving their stations right)
However, if you are talking about cloakers hot-dropping or sneaking up on weak targets.... that the point of cloaks.... thats what they are for.... And these are not AFK.
What you really need to answer is are you trying to stop AFK cloaking or all cloaking?
Everytime I read one of these threads its the same thing. The anti AFKcloak crowd suggest things that find or nerf all cloakers, while hiding behind the 'its to stop AFK cloaking' lie.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 13:30:00 -
[168] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:It is not a direct nerf on cloaking as say a fuel bay would. It targets the incentive to AFK for hours on end. And is adaptable so CCP can play with the timing to find what works best.
I call that balance. Would you care to answer the question yet? You mean the question whose answer is "if a cloaker doesn't show up in local, then he can't AFK cloak"? That one? Because that's certainly not used to push for a change which will make cloaks overpowered, no sirree. |
Twylla
Blue.Shift
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:38:00 -
[169] - Quote
Solution:
Space MInes, anchorable relative to SB bombs and Smartbombs.
Deployable one-time explosive devices that can detect and detonate if a cloaked (or any neutral/hostile) ship comes within a certain proximity. Rats do not trigger, but can be destroyed (leave no wreck, no bounty)
10K detection radius, can't be anchored within 5k of an object or 10k of another mine, or 30k from a gate.
Ideal deploy locations: 30-50-100k along align points around stations, warp-in vectors for gates, belts, or active grav sites, 'off grid' traps (
Reason:
AFK player can AFK all day long, but it'll give locals time to deploy mines. If cloaker decides to un-afk, he has to risk flying headlong into deployed minefields because he sat around and 'announced' his presence for god-knows how long.
Mine damage is not 'smart', and will damage anything within the explosion range, so position is important. Deploying a mine can be dangerous if the 'afk cloaker' isn't 'afk' and decides to trip the mine you just anchored while you're still near it. Warp-to-zero tackles are still viable. Keeping a minefield in position for extended periods of time enables busy covops pilots to 'map' the fields so fleets can work around them. Carebear: Passive-agressive industralist; Prey. Gunrunner:-áIndustrialist with a lot of big guns, keeps big friends supplied with big guns, and doesn't take sh*t from anybody. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:00:00 -
[170] - Quote
Lets see if I can get all of the relevant info right, and it is basicly this: Cloak is not the cause of afk, and leave WH-space alone. If we manage to come up with an idea that excludes these two major factors you might potentially agree.
One solution I can see then is. If a player does not give any inputs to the game in a set amount of time then that player will be timed out. Regardless of where said player is located, i.e. space or station.
There, cloak is untouched and wh-space is left alone. The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:01:00 -
[171] - Quote
EVE had mines a long while back, but they were removed because people kept abusing the **** out of them. |
Torin Corax
Zebra Corp
43
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:05:00 -
[172] - Quote
@Twylla:
Mines were removed for a very good reason. Also, do you really want that cloaker to come into your system and start laying mines in every belt, anom, sig (s)he can find while you are logged off? You think AFK cloakers are bad? Wait until the AFK mine-layers start flooding the system. If I had an inappropriate signature, it would be removed from here By. Spitfire |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:11:00 -
[173] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:It is not a direct nerf on cloaking as say a fuel bay would. It targets the incentive to AFK for hours on end. And is adaptable so CCP can play with the timing to find what works best.
I call that balance.
I call it your personal wish.
Number one covert ops craft don't have large cargo bays.
Number two, while i'm not going to rehash every counter there is to this proposal, having anti cloaking mechanisms will create strongholds of isk farming. If an alliance can offer one safe haven from cloaking they have the means to use the wealth generation to spread to a second system and so on and so forth. Cloaking is the one mechanism in the game that prevents absolute security. The devs know this which is why your thread is going to be ignored and left to the waste bin the same as the rest. Oh, im sure you figured yourself able to subdue the counter opinion on the boards but so far you haven't nor has anyone else. Speak your mind by all means but it is, has been and will be a exercise in futility.
And number three, as someone with cloaking level 5 and the skills that compliment it I do not accept such a gamebreaking and drastic change without the ability to have all my skill points back. And not just from cloaking but the crappy boats that harness cloakings power and i'd care for a ISK refund for the ships I bought to use said ability at the price I paid for them.
Thanks in advance & see you in the next thread. |
Lucien Visteen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:13:00 -
[174] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Twylla wrote:Solution:
Space MInes, anchorable relative to SB bombs and Smartbombs. EVE had mines a long while back, but they were removed because people kept abusing the **** out of them. Lucien Visteen wrote:There, cloak is untouched and wh-space is left alone. Optimist much? Fuel was rejected because it "broke long-term intel gathering deployments", and doing something was rejected because ... eh, I guess the funniest objection I saw was "it would just be botted away".
I like to try to find solutions to problems instead of bickering over the old ones . Even if the solution is not what was first introduced. That last objection seems to be the fall back to if all else fails, I've seen it been used in one of my older ideas aswell. But then petitioning for botting might be easier aswell since very few people can play for 23 hours straight. So it might even solve that problem too!
The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
364
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:15:00 -
[175] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:And number three, as someone with cloaking level 5 and the skills that compliment it I do not accept such a gamebreaking and drastic change without the ability to have all my skill points back. And not just from cloaking but the crappy boats that harness cloakings power and i'd care for a ISK refund for the ships I bought to use said ability at the price I paid for them. This part isn't something I would bet on. You can ask supercaps pilots how refundable their SP were. |
Twylla
Blue.Shift
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:16:00 -
[176] - Quote
Torin Corax wrote:@Twylla:
Mines were removed for a very good reason. Also, do you really want that cloaker to come into your system and start laying mines in every belt, anom, sig (s)he can find while you are logged off? You think AFK cloakers are bad? Wait until the AFK mine-layers start flooding the system.
It's not like you can't pick them up on a D-scan and snipe them. Furthermore, I'd think they'd need to be deployable by something with a serious cargo bay.
Sometimes old ideas are just ahead of their time. Real militaries dust off old concepts all the time and shine them up if they solve a problem. Carebear: Passive-agressive industralist; Prey. Gunrunner:-áIndustrialist with a lot of big guns, keeps big friends supplied with big guns, and doesn't take sh*t from anybody. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
367
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:25:00 -
[177] - Quote
And sometimes bad ideas are just bad. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:26:00 -
[178] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:And number three, as someone with cloaking level 5 and the skills that compliment it I do not accept such a gamebreaking and drastic change without the ability to have all my skill points back. And not just from cloaking but the crappy boats that harness cloakings power and i'd care for a ISK refund for the ships I bought to use said ability at the price I paid for them. This part isn't something I would bet on. You can ask supercaps pilots how refundable their SP were.
They adjusted Supers hit points and drone ability. Fairly significant but nowhere near as detrimental to those caps as making cloaking a complete waste of time. Now if they removed supers doomsday weapon i'd concur.
I do count on however the sheer volume of cloak users, far greater than super pilots, shooting statues in jita. And for me on a personal level if I were screwed over i'd close my account. I may have if I had a super but i'm not oblivious to the difference between stat adjustment in a honest sense and making cloaking a logisitcs ridden waste of combat ability for the sake of risk averse players wanting absolute safety to farm null sec.
And i'm feeling real secure and comfortable in what I know of the EVE community and the devs that cloaking is going to stay just a viable and worthwhile to use as it is at present. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
367
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:33:00 -
[179] - Quote
Caliph Muhammed wrote:absolute safety to farm null sec. I found a mistake. |
Caliph Muhammed
inderpendent manufacturing operations Amen Anera
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:35:00 -
[180] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Caliph Muhammed wrote:absolute safety to farm null sec. I found a mistake.
I don't think so. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |