Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18894
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 08:44:14 -
[9691] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it. If true, it shows that CCP have not learned anything when it comes to their player base.
He is talking rubbish.
What that would mean is 100% safety for ratters in null with no way to counter it. |
Xcom
Quantum Vortex Battalion
181
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 09:41:26 -
[9692] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it. Source? This is great news. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1193
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 16:35:11 -
[9693] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:How do you justify having any issue at all with ships evading you then? Every single PvP whine falls completely in the face of that, from people docking up to WCS farmers in faction war, to complaining about the AI changes that made hunters start tanking against the rats shooting their targets. The difference you keep ignoring is that those people are actively making ISK while being safe, while a cloaked ship is just sitting there. A FW farmer with lows full of WCS is turning a PvP combat system into another mindless PvE farming opportunity, continuing to make ISK at maximum effectiveness with near-zero risk because WCS have no penalty. The AI changes are stupid because why should the NPCs attack someone who came in to kill the person who has been killing them? And nobody is complaining that people dock up instead of going into suicidal fights or demanding changes to the docking mechanics. Quote:And yeah, Citadels are more at risk than a cloaked ship. They can be found and force brought to bear to interfere or destroy them. It's not a casual endeavor, but it's possible, which is more than you can say for a cloaked ship. When the effort involved requires weeks of work from a major PvP force, and it's virtually impossible to keep the players docked inside from escaping at some point before the citadel is destroyed, the idea that being docked in a citadel isn't 100% safe is pretty insane.
What you are failing to comprehend is that it does not matter what you are doing, if you are in space you should be subject to non-consensual interaction. You seem to understand it just fine when it's not your ship or playstyle, but somehow cloaks get a pass.
Citadels are less safe than a cloak. You can, with enough expenditure of time and effort, eventually force the occupants to move. When they do, you have a *chance* to catch them. You don't even have to take the thing down, it's a known point in space you can watch and camp if you choose. That's not possible with a cloaked ship. No force, no matter how mind-bogglingly stupid for the task, can do anything at all to a ship hiding in space under a cloak.
Yet somehow you are ok with a module outperforming stations and citadels at the one thing stations and citadels exist for in the first place. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 17:14:50 -
[9694] - Quote
Xcom wrote:Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it. Source? This is great news.
He has no source.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2017.04.26 19:36:18 -
[9695] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:How do you justify having any issue at all with ships evading you then? Every single PvP whine falls completely in the face of that, from people docking up to WCS farmers in faction war, to complaining about the AI changes that made hunters start tanking against the rats shooting their targets. The difference you keep ignoring is that those people are actively making ISK while being safe, while a cloaked ship is just sitting there. A FW farmer with lows full of WCS is turning a PvP combat system into another mindless PvE farming opportunity, continuing to make ISK at maximum effectiveness with near-zero risk because WCS have no penalty. The AI changes are stupid because why should the NPCs attack someone who came in to kill the person who has been killing them? And nobody is complaining that people dock up instead of going into suicidal fights or demanding changes to the docking mechanics. Quote:And yeah, Citadels are more at risk than a cloaked ship. They can be found and force brought to bear to interfere or destroy them. It's not a casual endeavor, but it's possible, which is more than you can say for a cloaked ship. When the effort involved requires weeks of work from a major PvP force, and it's virtually impossible to keep the players docked inside from escaping at some point before the citadel is destroyed, the idea that being docked in a citadel isn't 100% safe is pretty insane. What you are failing to comprehend is that it does not matter what you are doing, if you are in space you should be subject to non-consensual interaction. You seem to understand it just fine when it's not your ship or playstyle, but somehow cloaks get a pass. Citadels are less safe than a cloak. You can, with enough expenditure of time and effort, eventually force the occupants to move. When they do, you have a *chance* to catch them. You don't even have to take the thing down, it's a known point in space you can watch and camp if you choose. That's not possible with a cloaked ship. No force, no matter how mind-bogglingly stupid for the task, can do anything at all to a ship hiding in space under a cloak. Yet somehow you are ok with a module outperforming stations and citadels at the one thing stations and citadels exist for in the first place.
Cloaks do not outperform stations or citadels. Stations and citadels provide a number of additional benefits.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1195
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 03:51:28 -
[9696] - Quote
Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 05:23:34 -
[9697] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.
Nope. How is a station inferior? How is a citadel inferior?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18897
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 10:39:56 -
[9698] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak.
Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
3388
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 11:40:11 -
[9699] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it. If true, it shows that CCP have not learned anything when it comes to their player base. He is talking rubbish. What that would mean is 100% safety for ratters in null with no way to counter it. I don't doubt that idea is on a whiteboard in Reykjavik as a possible improvement for dealing with cloak campers. It is essentially the Observatory Array idea mentioned in the original structure devblog.
Of course, right next to it is a little asterisk and the note 'IMPLEMENT WITH NERF TO LOCAL IN NULLSEC'.
After how cagey CCP was to questions on AFK cloaking and future structures at Fanfest, I wouldn't expect to see this functionality (and the nerf to local) for citadels or via a dedicated Observatory Array until well into 2018 though. Neither appears to be anywhere close to being on the roadmap and with all hands on deck for an Empire-focused expansion this winter, it isn't going to be on the roadmap for a while.
The 8 Golden Rules of Eve
Why Do They Gank?
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2017.04.27 17:41:57 -
[9700] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:baltec1 wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Dracvlad wrote:OK, I was told reliably that CCP are intending to set up the uncloaking wave idea within a system with a long cooldown attached to a citadel, so that active campers will have no issues but those that are AFK will be uncloaked and can then be probed down.
That is good news even if it screws up cloaks for casual players who get called away.
I think that this is a good solution and it makes me very happy. Good job CCP, don't back away from it. If true, it shows that CCP have not learned anything when it comes to their player base. He is talking rubbish. What that would mean is 100% safety for ratters in null with no way to counter it. I don't doubt that idea is on a whiteboard in Reykjavik as a possible improvement for dealing with cloak campers. It is essentially the Observatory Array idea mentioned in the original structure devblog. Of course, right next to it is a little asterisk and the note 'IMPLEMENT WITH NERF TO LOCAL IN NULLSEC'. After how cagey CCP was to questions on AFK cloaking and future structures at Fanfest, I wouldn't expect to see this functionality (and the nerf to local) for citadels or via a dedicated Observatory Array until well into 2018 though. Neither appears to be anywhere close to being on the roadmap and with all hands on deck for an Empire-focused expansion this winter, it isn't going to be on the roadmap for a while.
Possibly. I would hope they come up with a different solution or make this one expensive--i.e. if you do this, the other features you can put on the Observatory Array (OA) are much more limited. That is, you can push the "decloak wave" button, but that is about all the OA is going to let you do. Or more bluntly, local is gone, you can decloak cloaked ships, but that is all making it possible that ATK hunters will find you. Combat recons will be wonderful, do not show up on d-scan and no local....have a nice day Mike, Drac, and Xcom.
And yeah, my guess is this is way down there on the development cycle. CCP has repeatedly indicated they are reasonably happy with cloaks as is....so they may change it, but not for awhile. So Drav may be right, but he is either not telling the full story or doesn't have the full story.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
|
Dziqn
Shocky Industries Ltd. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 10:46:23 -
[9701] - Quote
We need some kind of conter for AFK Cloaky alts. Its stupid he can sit in system all day and night. Maybe fuel or new combat probes. Its not about ppl cloaking its about doing it afk |
Tessa Sage
Legion of the Wicked Way Advent of Fate
1
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 11:17:12 -
[9702] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote: ...
Look, both local and AFK cloaking need to go. Players should be able to "claw" back the benefits of local via the Observatory Array. However, it should not simply give back local as it is "too good". Intel should be based on player effort not just some structure one anchors.
I'd also like to see the structure vulnerable not only to attack, but also some sort of subversion. That is when subverted (where there is a chance of both failure and success) the person(s) subverting the OA get some sort of benefit, such as appearing as blue, not appearing on intel reports or some such.
At the same time cloaked ships should be vulnerable to probing. Maybe not as vulnerable as an uncloaked/non-cloaking ship (i.e. it will take longer to scan them down--after all cloaks should provide some benefit even against probes IMO), but vulnerable enough so that AFK cloaking is no longer a viable strategy.
Arbitrarily I went to the 'Pi' page 314 of this thread and behold, the very same someone I just read / replied to on a previous post. I agree with the opportunity for entosis level espionage: a normal behaving OA could counter neutral incursions whether with augments to player scanning or other buffs. Crack said Array in a manageable Entosis fit, and local goes bonk reflecting far from the true player count at that time (think wh space again, but not dark, disco).
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1195
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 19:09:53 -
[9703] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak. Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection.
Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all.
Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6428
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 21:27:54 -
[9704] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak. Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection. Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all. Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose.
Good thing they aren't superior.
Maybe when I can park my obelisk inside my nemesis....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6428
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 21:31:03 -
[9705] - Quote
Dziqn wrote:We need some kind of conter for AFK Cloaky alts. Its stupid he can sit in system all day and night. Maybe fuel or new combat probes. Its not about ppl cloaking its about doing it afk
No need for implementing a counter you already have one. How do you know there is an AFK cloaker in system?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1198
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 03:38:25 -
[9706] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak. Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection. Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all. Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose. Good thing they aren't superior. Maybe when I can park my obelisk inside my nemesis....
How about that Nemesis itself? Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6428
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 04:28:21 -
[9707] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Yet the one thing they are supposed to do, provide a safe place, is done better by a cloak. Cloaks don't come armed with a doomsday, invincibility or asset protection. Asset Protection is the only reason a safe place in EVE exists at all. Cloaks don't need and should not have anywhere near, never mind superior, safety to the only thing that is supposed to be safe for that purpose. Good thing they aren't superior. Maybe when I can park my obelisk inside my nemesis.... How about that Nemesis itself? Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter.
Of course it does not apply, the nemesis pilot is consenting to PvP.
And cloaks are still not superior to stations or citadels. Maybe when I can keep 5 billion ISK worth of invention materials in my proteus you might have a point.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
363
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 06:56:16 -
[9708] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter.
Ah yes, the same tired old bleating about "I MUST PVP THIS". You've provided no good reasons for your blanket statements that everything must be vulnerable to attack at all times, you've just declared it to be true. And you continue to overlook the massive balance problems that come with every proposal to add vulnerability to cloaked ships: either the counter is ineffective at best and non-consent applies only in theory, or the counter is way too easy and effectively removes cloaks from the game. And I have no idea why you consider this "ALL MUST BE VULNERABLE" principle to be more important than the practical balance consequences of your obsession with it.
|
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 09:19:05 -
[9709] - Quote
Thelonious Blake wrote:And honestly I have yet to see a member of distinguished wormhole group/corporation to moan about cloaking mechanics. And this speaks alot. Prove me wrong with a link.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. being vocal about AFK cloaking doesn't mean the mechanic is broken. Not in the current state of the game, at least by my opinion.
wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
444
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 09:31:18 -
[9710] - Quote
Now Life wrote:Thelonious Blake wrote:And honestly I have yet to see a member of distinguished wormhole group/corporation to moan about cloaking mechanics. And this speaks alot. Prove me wrong with a link.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal. being vocal about AFK cloaking doesn't mean the mechanic is broken. Not in the current state of the game, at least by my opinion. wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS
It sounds like you have issue with cynos, not with cloaks ...
Wormholer for life.
|
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
363
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 09:36:22 -
[9711] - Quote
Now Life wrote:wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS
I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own? |
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 09:49:32 -
[9712] - Quote
The biggest problem with a afk cloaker is the cyno on the ship . He just need to be in system just watching his DS for Juicy targets and meanwhile ratting with a different character in their home systems . Camp the system for as long as he wants and still no way to find him . When the targets ar nice cal for fleet and hot drop
We need to keep backup fleets ready fore every day as long he is in system . So one character can keep a fleet on stand by even when he is afk . and removing local Is not a solution you can see on dotlan in which systems people are active. Self ccp gives intelligence with their monthly economic report
|
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 09:54:01 -
[9713] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Now Life wrote:wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own?
We have And its not the 100+ capitals i have problems with it the afk cloaker
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1322
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 10:23:55 -
[9714] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:What you are failing to comprehend is that it does not matter what you are doing, if you are in space you should be subject to non-consensual interaction. You seem to understand it just fine when it's not your ship or playstyle, but somehow cloaks get a pass. Let's get rid of citadel tethers and pos forcefields too, then.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
444
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 10:39:28 -
[9715] - Quote
Now Life wrote:Merin Ryskin wrote:Now Life wrote:wormhole group/corporations can't be hotdropt by 100+ capitals /BS I fail to see the problem with a 100+ man fleet succeeding in killing something. If you bring that many ships against a lesser target of course you should win. Perhaps, instead of whining that you can get hotdropped by 100+ capitals, you should match their hotdrop with 100+ capitals of your own? We have And its not the 100+ capitals i have problems with, it's the afk cloaker
Then why do you bring up the cyno then? Your issue is with it's ability to have a rapidly increasing amount of enemies in your system. You just don't want to nerf it since you use it too. Wanting to nerf cloaks to stop cyno's so you can PVE in perfect safety is quite funny to me as you are supposed to live in a dangerous part of New Eden....
Wormholer for life.
|
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 14:04:45 -
[9716] - Quote
Then why do you bring up the cyno then? Your issue is with it's ability to have a rapidly increasing amount of enemies in your system. You just don't want to nerf it since you use it too. Wanting to nerf cloaks to stop cyno's so you can PVE in perfect safety is quite funny to me as you are supposed to live in a dangerous part of New Eden....[/quote]
i have no problems with cloakt ships with cyno on it as long as they actively play i have problems when the cloakt ship (character) remains online player go to work / sleep : AFK for long time and not active If the Afk cloaker have no cyno you do not need backup fleet on standby just watch intel |
Wander Prian
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
445
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 14:12:10 -
[9717] - Quote
Now Life wrote:
Then why do you bring up the cyno then? Your issue is with it's ability to have a rapidly increasing amount of enemies in your system. You just don't want to nerf it since you use it too. Wanting to nerf cloaks to stop cyno's so you can PVE in perfect safety is quite funny to me as you are supposed to live in a dangerous part of New Eden....
i have no problems with cloakt ships with cyno on it as long as they actively play i have problems when the cloakt ship (character) remains online player go to work / sleep : AFK for long time and not active If the Afk cloaker have no cyno you do not need backup fleet on standby just watch intel [/quote]
So again, you want 100% perfect safety, got it.
Wormholer for life.
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1198
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 17:07:19 -
[9718] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Right. Non-Consent only applies to your targets, it should never ever be allowed to come back to the hunter. Ah yes, the same tired old bleating about "I MUST PVP THIS". You've provided no good reasons for your blanket statements that everything must be vulnerable to attack at all times, you've just declared it to be true. And you continue to overlook the massive balance problems that come with every proposal to add vulnerability to cloaked ships: either the counter is ineffective at best and non-consent applies only in theory, or the counter is way too easy and effectively removes cloaks from the game. And I have no idea why you consider this "ALL MUST BE VULNERABLE" principle to be more important than the practical balance consequences of your obsession with it.
You are questioning if someone should be venerable at all.
This is the entire basis of the 'OMG, PvE'rs are TOO SAFE, must counter Local'. How do you justify that argument if people aren't supposed to be venerable?
Lets skip the part where the cloaked ship isn't interacting with the game, because anyone can refuse to interact with or without a cloak and there are plenty of things a cloaked ship can do including some things you can't while in station, and clearly you are because otherwise this thread would not exist. We can skip the compromised combat potential because plenty of ships are weaker.
The entire point is that people are actively evading hunters who then get butthurt that they missed easy targets, and yet you advocate infinite safety at even less effort for your own playstyle. |
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 17:37:45 -
[9719] - Quote
Wander Prian wrote:Now Life wrote:
Then why do you bring up the cyno then? Your issue is with it's ability to have a rapidly increasing amount of enemies in your system. You just don't want to nerf it since you use it too. Wanting to nerf cloaks to stop cyno's so you can PVE in perfect safety is quite funny to me as you are supposed to live in a dangerous part of New Eden....
i have no problems with cloakt ships with cyno on it as long as they actively play i have problems when the cloakt ship (character) remains online player go to work / sleep : AFK for long time and not active If the Afk cloaker have no cyno you do not need backup fleet on standby just watch intel
So again, you want 100% perfect safety, got it.[/quote]
and no not again When did i say , i want 100% perfect safety ? EVE is never safe and I do not want 100% perfect safety
It is just not normal that 1 person can camp 23h45min a day and not even be home for 18h of it . |
Now Life
The Scope Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2017.04.29 18:03:31 -
[9720] - Quote
just an idea
You have : Mobile Cynosural Inhibitors - 100km effective range Two minute activation time.
May not be deployed within 200km of another Mobile Cynosural Inhibitor, within 75km of Stargates, Stations or Upwell Structures, or within 40km of a Starbase. Cannot be retrieved once deployed. Self-destructs after one hour of operation.
You have : Mobile S / M / L Warp Disruputors - not possible to deploy in 2500m of a gat / ship / WH / ......
Why not a : Mobile Cloaking Disruptor Same restrictions as the Mobile Cynosural Inhibitors + do not decloak ships in warp
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |