Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 65 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
63
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 01:57:00 -
[301] - Quote
Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.
Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake. |
Nyssa Litari
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:00:00 -
[302] - Quote
Sturgeon's Law in full effect here.
There's a module idea... The Sturgeonator: Turns 90% of the enemy fleet into crap, instantly. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
91
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:18:00 -
[303] - Quote
Signature reducing rigs
capital rigs!
Mid slot alternative to a dcu (does the exact same thing, cant fit both)
cloaking AOE (would make a great capital suport mod)
same thing as above only removes you from being scanned, so not cloaked and can be seen on grid
more BS sized X-L modules
SIZED tackle modules, small, med, large, capital, varying range and effect, perhaps even combo mods (30% web, 1 piont 10km)
scripted tackle, more/less effect/range |
kalbrak Jr
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:05:00 -
[304] - Quote
Warp scramble script for the Warp Disruption Field Generator. This would have a shorter range than the Focused Warp Disruption script but would shut down micro warp drives.
|
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
2849
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:35:00 -
[305] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.
Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake.
The idea is to add the cost of the slot as a fitting requirement especially for ships that are very fat on thier fitting abilities (that you can almost shove anything you want on it as well as allow for slighlty bit more outragous models that behave as two or more modules at once while helping prevent wreckless loading on such modules without thought.
|
Nyssa Litari
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:40:00 -
[306] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Mars Theran wrote:Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.
Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake. The idea is to add the cost of the slot as a fitting requirement especially for ships that are very fat on thier fitting abilities (that you can almost shove anything you want on it as well as allow for slighlty bit more outragous models that behave as two or more modules at once while helping prevent wreckless loading on such modules without thought. So what you're saying is that these modules are for Minmatar only. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
2849
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:55:00 -
[307] - Quote
Meh I am sure ccp is going to come up wtih something different than what I suggested if they go this route.
Though few of the modules would suggest that it would fit minmatar thoery a bit better, destroy self to do more damage.
and no I havent had an energy drink today.
|
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 05:04:00 -
[308] - Quote
Damage to modules.
Have something simular to nanite repair paste, Nanite Acid, it can by added to conventional ammo, ofcourse there will be a reduction in volley damage, but it will provide a damage over time effect to modules. For game fluff, Missiles/projectiles have it added to there payload, Lasers have a plasma burst effect at the end of the shot that causes secondary fires and explosions on the victim, hybrids have Nanite injected to the charge and imbedded into the hull.
There are many tactical uses I could see for this, Smaller ships using Acidic ammo to disable larger ships modules. It would provide massive tactical changes and the need for a new module.
Internal Dampener: Simular to a Damage Control in fitting and power usage, it allows the use of Nanite Repair Paste while the module is active. It also adds a 50%(60% T2) resistance to acidic ammo, but when modules are overheated they take damage faster than normal. The module also updates the modules hp repair status at the end of everycycle, so you don't have to wait for the whole cycle to finish to recieve the repair effect. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 05:40:00 -
[309] - Quote
Nyssa Litari wrote:Nova Fox wrote:Mars Theran wrote:Please. Someone stop suggesting we develop modules that take multiple slots; beterr: Everyone stop suggesting it.
Hardpoints are exactly that; a limited amount of space and structural support for mounting something. You want the benefit of 5000mm plate using a 2 slot requirement; then get two 2500mm plates for cripes sake. The idea is to add the cost of the slot as a fitting requirement especially for ships that are very fat on thier fitting abilities (that you can almost shove anything you want on it as well as allow for slighlty bit more outragous models that behave as two or more modules at once while helping prevent wreckless loading on such modules without thought. So what you're saying is that these modules are for Minmatar only.
I think the point is, these modules are going to be extremely heavy and affect inertia and velocity; which is hindrance in itself, and reason not to use them. If that isn't enough, the drain on powergrid would be horrendous.
There is no need to make a module to take up 2 slots, and I think the idea would probably be very hard to implement; such, that it could quite possibly require a complete rewrite of much of the code used for fitting. Some of it may need rewriting anyway; but that's not exactly the point.
Also, huge guns that take the place of 5-8 smaller guns.. that idea is so unworkable, it takes not just this; but add's redesigning every model in the game into it.
Weapon Hardpoints have placements on ships that are determined in a 3D environment; when something is added, the game engine moves it to the appropriate location on the ship. Effectively, you're asking for them to add, (at the very least), one location on the ship where you can mount this monstrosity; which is not really to hard in and of itself.
What is hard, is coding the game to recognize the difference between this monstrosity and a regular gun, make it take up 5 slots instead of just one, and fit in that exact spot which is not really all that clearly defined yet. Changes to the model will most likely also be required, so this big gun doesn't look entirely stupid. (i.e. Stabber/Vagabond with turrets).
It is much easier to just design a new gun and model, make it something not faction specific, and make a ship to carry it and use it. At least, that's what I think. |
Xandralkus
Morior Invictus. Velocitas Eradico
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 07:06:00 -
[310] - Quote
LSE's and 1600 mm plates are good for battlecruisers, but it seems that in order to fit an even moderately decent tank on a battleship, you have to plate or shield-extend the hell out of it - AND use rigs too.
Give us an X-Large Shield Extender - and have it require enough powergrid to where mounting ONE is not incosequential to a battleship (and virtually impossible to fit on a battlecruiser at all). Also, give us a 3200 mm plate, with similarly huge fitting requirements for the armor tankers (at least as much as a large repper, maybe more).
Frigates can fit cruiser-grade tank equipment for large boosts to EHP from a single module.
Cruisers and battlecruisers can fit battleship-grade tank equipment for similarly massive EHP boosts from just one or two modules. A cruiser with a single LSE effectively doubles its base shield HP.
Battleships lack any such module. There's no reason that there should be such a large EHP gap between battleships and capitals. Start with more potential for battleship EHP.
Another idea, already proposed - semi-siege module for vastly boosting active tanking capabilities. Have this require fuel in the cargo bay, just like a cyno or a siege module.
And of course, anti-blob tanking modules. "Absorbative Shielding" for shield tankers, and "Powered Armor" for armor tankers. When activated, these modules would consume fuel for each cycle, and apply diminishing returns for incoming DPS, according to the number of people firing at the user. Getting primaried by a fleet of 50 people would not be much different in terms of incoming damage as compared to a fleet of 5. And capital EHP could be brought in line with other ships, starting at only modestly better than battleship EHP.
Obviously, don't implement ALL of these. Otherwise ships would be unkillable. Anti-blob tanking modules would probably be the most useful. Eve UI wouldn't suck if CCP allowed UI addons. |
|
Saelyth
Nex quod Principatus SRS.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 08:03:00 -
[311] - Quote
Coolant Tank [T2 in brackets]
Mid-slot item Activation time / duration: 15 [10] seconds CPU Usage: 25 [35] tf Powergrid: 1 Capacity: 10 [15] m3 Charges Per Cycle: 1 Primary Skill required: Thermodynamics 2 [5] Used with: Coolant
Each use of the module would reduce heat in all racks by X amount
Another option would be to have various sizes of this item (Small, Medium, Large) with increasing CPU/PG usage on par with items of those ship sizes. Item could be ship size specific, could require more charges per use, or other similar options.
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbits Society
113
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:16:00 -
[312] - Quote
I previously mentioned heat, and others have like Saelyth have mentioned a coolant tank for overheating.
May I suggest that heat is the new e-warfare type, and there should be new ships and modules for it, and against it. I would prefer if you are going to do Damage over Time, that instead, it is Heat over Time. Damage over Time will just end up as more broadcasts to logistics, which is already a very busy role. Heat on the other hand, could be an entirely separate mechanic, that does not affect logistics ships broadcasting bandwidth.
Heat would be interesting, as it has the ability to destroy modules, or cause them to need nanite repair, and a counter coolant. Increasing overheating in the game would not be a bad thing and add more tactical flexibility to fights, and give DPS pilots something to do, other than spamming the repair button |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbits Society
113
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:18:00 -
[313] - Quote
Saelyth wrote:Coolant Tank [T2 in brackets] Mid-slot item Activation time / duration: 15 [10] seconds CPU Usage: 25 [35] tf Powergrid: 1 Capacity: 10 [15] m3 Charges Per Cycle: 1 Primary Skill required: Thermodynamics 2 [5] Used with: CoolantEach use of the module would reduce heat in all racks by X amount Another option would be to have various sizes of this item (Small, Medium, Large) with increasing CPU/PG usage on par with items of those ship sizes. Item could be ship size specific, could require more charges per use, or other similar options.
Like it, just don't like it being only midslot. Should be either mid and low slot variations, aka like ECCM, so not as to punish shield based ships. Otherwise, good stuff if tied to a heat over time new e-war type. |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
41
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:43:00 -
[314] - Quote
Actually, it shouldn't be high/medium/low. There should be one of each. I propose "Rack - Coolant Injector" Where Rack is Low/Medium/High. It is applicable to a given rack that is overheated, and consumes coolant. This would do wonders for active tanking! |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
564
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:53:00 -
[315] - Quote
CCP I present again my idea for a new module and probe system to deal with the issue of AFK cloaking in a fair way that does not seriously impact the activities of those that are actually at their keyboard.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=667646
The only change I need to note is I now support a time limit before the probes even reveal there is a cloaked craft in the area scanned. 15-30 mins should be fair so that W-space pilots have a bit of time to go to the bathroom if needed.
It has images showing the basic idea for implementation.
I hope you will consider this. |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
41
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:55:00 -
[316] - Quote
With that in mind:
1. Magnetic Accelerator
Works with Blasters only
Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.
Effect: 50% to 100% Optimal range increase in Blasters with Falloff bonus to match.
Penalty: Always active, possible damage reduction (Passive).
2. Inertial Compensator:
[i]Works for Railguns only[/i
Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.
Effect: Reduction in Optimal range, higher Tracking.
Penalty: Always Active (Passive).
These two modules would essentially provide for Blasters and Railguns to become permanent medium-ranged weapons at the cost of 1 low slot. The lack of further modules to amplify damage and tracking aswell as fall off is intended to complement the way these things would work.
3. Improved Nanotubed Internal Structure.
Fitting: 1 Low Slot
Effect: Armor repair amount +% (To be defined).
Penalty: Active Module
Description: By improving the ship's internal structure with passageways for nanites, the possibiites for faster access to damaged sections of the ship by repair teams and nanite paste allow for a better rate of structural damage repair, at the cost of further capacitor by the Nnites to transverse the passageways.
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
41
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 10:55:00 -
[317] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:With that in mind:
1. Magnetic Accelerator
Works with Blasters only
Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.
Effect: 50% to 100% Optimal range increase in Blasters with Falloff bonus to match.
Penalty: Always active, possible damage reduction (Passive).
2. Inertial Compensator:
Works for Railguns only
Fitting: 1 Low Slot, further requirements matching Magnetic Field Stabilizers.
Effect: Reduction in Optimal range, higher Tracking.
Penalty: Always Active (Passive).
These two modules would essentially provide for Blasters and Railguns to become permanent medium-ranged weapons at the cost of 1 low slot. The lack of further modules to amplify damage and tracking aswell as fall off is intended to complement the way these things would work.
3. Improved Nanotubed Internal Structure.
Fitting: 1 Low Slot
Effect: Armor repair amount +% (To be defined).
Penalty: Active Module
Description: By improving the ship's internal structure with passageways for nanites, the possibiites for faster access to damaged sections of the ship by repair teams and nanite paste allow for a better rate of structural damage repair, at the cost of further capacitor by the Nnites to transverse the passageways.
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbits Society
113
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:16:00 -
[318] - Quote
Regarding stuff for decloaking cloaky stuff, may I suggest it is a module type and skill tied to destroyers, and perhaps a new T2 Destroyer variant. This is the historical comparison of what destroyers did in a naval fleet role, with anti-air secondary.
I am against anything that is basically a click this to win button. It should be cat and mouse, just like the submarine warfare, cloaky ships already resemble.
But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.
If there is a anti-cloaky mechanic, I would like to see it tied to the tactical overlay, and act as a sort of 'ping' mechanic which only works on grid, with only a rough idea where a cloaky ship is located increasing as the destroyer closes in, but pings can only be done every couple of minutes or so. In addition, the de-cloaking mechanic should remain (have to get in range), small smart bombs should get a range bonus on new/existing destroyers, which makes them more useful and gives them a sort of depth charge ability to hurt cloaky ships while not revealing them.
I think it would be fun for all involved. |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:30:00 -
[319] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:CCP I present again my idea for a new module and probe system to deal with the issue of AFK cloaking in a fair way that does not seriously impact the activities of those that are actually at their keyboard. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=667646The only change I need to note is I now support a time limit before the probes even reveal there is a cloaked craft in the area scanned. 15-30 mins should be fair so that W-space pilots have a bit of time to go to the bathroom if needed. It has images showing the basic idea for implementation. I hope you will consider this.
CCP in the December CSM summit Minutes mentioned both the issue of Local being used as intel and the use of a new cloaking probing technique. CSM agrees that these issues go hand in hand.
They are reviewing the material and the arguments on both sides to find the most balanced way to approach this hotly debated topic.
Truthfully most people who afk cloak right now won't mind a cloaking prober if local is properly removed as a flawless intel tool, because it removes the reason they afk cloak. Even I support anti-cloaking methods if you remove the role of local as an intel tool. W-Spacers on the other hand will have to adapt, this is where the most opposition will come from.
Good luck |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:36:00 -
[320] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.
There are thousands of killmails on battleclinic that directly opposes that satement. Bombers can kill a BS 1v1 easily.
I like the idea of anchorable beacons that ping the system for cloaked ships.
|
|
Nestara Aldent
EVE University Ivy League
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:50:00 -
[321] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Regarding stuff for decloaking cloaky stuff, may I suggest it is a module type and skill tied to destroyers, and perhaps a new T2 Destroyer variant. This is the historical comparison of what destroyers did in a naval fleet role, with anti-air secondary.
I am against anything that is basically a click this to win button. It should be cat and mouse, just like the submarine warfare, cloaky ships already resemble.
But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship.
If there is a anti-cloaky mechanic, I would like to see it tied to the tactical overlay, and act as a sort of 'ping' mechanic which only works on grid, with only a rough idea where a cloaky ship is located increasing as the destroyer closes in, but pings can only be done every couple of minutes or so. In addition, the de-cloaking mechanic should remain (have to get in range), small smart bombs should get a range bonus on new/existing destroyers, which makes them more useful and gives them a sort of depth charge ability to hurt cloaky ships while not revealing them.
I think it would be fun for all involved.
Eve isn't the game about WWII so leave it out of it! Really it makes no sense to make ships in a science fiction game based on what naval ships historically did. |
Tenga Halaris
Rubicon Legion
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 11:56:00 -
[322] - Quote
How about a dedicated Drone Damage Mod?
"Advanced Drone Controller II":
+7,5% Damage Modifier -5% Cycle Time CPU req.: 30 PG req.: 5
On Paper, Drone Ships like the Dominix put out a Lot of DPS, but since Heavies are dead slow and Sentries are stationary, it's way less arriving DPS.
Also:
The medium and Heavy Drones need more Basespeed. 25% for Medium and 50% for Heavies would be nice. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbits Society
113
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:23:00 -
[323] - Quote
Nestara Aldent wrote:
Eve isn't the game about WWII so leave it out of it! Really it makes no sense to make ships in a science fiction game based on what naval ships historically did.
Hmmm think you're being a little mean spirited here and taking it off topic, but to confirm, the ship classes are almost identical to the roles used in naval warfare, and even in game factions are called things like the Amarr Navy. So, it is not to much of a stretch to suggest that destroyers, who hunt 'stealthy hidden' submarines in naval warfare, hunt 'stealthy hidden' stealth bombers in the science fiction world of EvE. I can't see what is wrong with that suggestion. |
Solinuas
Beyond Evil and Good
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:39:00 -
[324] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Even I support anti-cloaking methods if you remove the role of local as an intel tool. W-Spacers on the other hand will have to adapt, this is where the most opposition will come from.
Good luck
Now if local is removed as a intel tool a lot of what makes W-space unique is gone, and besides, it cuts both ways evenly you can use it just as much as other people can.
However i do support anti AFK cloaking measures |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbits Society
113
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:40:00 -
[325] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Moonaura wrote:But there is a big difference, a stealth bomber, can't kill a real ship solo, either with bombs or torpedos, where as historically, a single submarine could sink multiple ships, where as it takes several stealth bombers to take down a battleship. There are thousands of killmails on battleclinic that directly opposes that satement. Bombers can kill a BS 1v1 easily. I like the idea of anchorable beacons that ping the system for cloaked ships.
Well, given that drones can easily kill a stealth bomber, I'm going to have to assume that either the battleship pilots in question were both poorly fit, or did not warp away, given that the stealth bomber cannot point and use target dampening enough to both hold and solo a battleship with complete immunity. Stealth bombers combined, well that is a different story of course, although something like an Arazu is still handy in the gang to provide the pointing.
Anchorable beacons would probably push the game of cat and mouse, firmly in the cats direction, where as a destroyer is a vulnerable ship in a fleet engagement, and would have a very specific, human controlled role against stealth. Again, I only suggest this as an alternative to those suggesting there should be the ability for all ships to probe out cloaky ships system wide. Intelligence plays a key role in EvE, and cloaky ships are needed, and sat miles away from anything, in a safe spot, should indeed feel very safe. The risk should come into play if they approach an actual ship or fleet.
Regarding local, I have previously suggested a temporary local jammer for black ops class ships, therefore retaining local in existing game play, making it different from WH space, and making it more interesting and useful to fly a black ops ship and fleet. |
Jade Mitch
United Coalitions ZADA ALLIANCE
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:45:00 -
[326] - Quote
Chemical Countermeasures Dedicated CC Launcher, fits in a medium power slot Uses two kinds of ammo:
Smoke screen Creates a white puffy cloud of smoke. Anything positioned within the cloud is removed from overview and loses all icons and data normally displayed in space. Objects in a cloud cannot be pinpointed with probes. Exiting the smoke cloud makes you visible again on overview and in space. Clouds create beacon signatures that are visible to all pilots in the system.
Flare Launches a small, bright, sparkly decoy that floats off in a random direction from your ship. All locks on your ship are redirected to the flare, including turrets, drones, and targeted missiles. Flare has 1m signature radius and travels 1 km/s for 5 seconds or until destroyed. |
Klytior Am'jarhs
Amarrian Retribution
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:59:00 -
[327] - Quote
Deployable Cyno Jammer is really something that sounds great. Will protect the little guys when doing pos siege on the (big alliances pos). And large moving fleets won't have any advantage using them.
They do need a online delay think (minutes) And only 1 on grid. And not to though so it dies to some alpha damage.. |
Strata Maslav
Born-2-Kill 0ccupational Hazzard
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:47:00 -
[328] - Quote
Solinuas wrote:Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Even I support anti-cloaking methods if you remove the role of local as an intel tool. W-Spacers on the other hand will have to adapt, this is where the most opposition will come from.
Good luck
Now if local is removed as a intel tool a lot of what makes W-space unique is gone, and besides, it cuts both ways evenly you can use it just as much as other people can. However i do support anti AFK cloaking measures
Wormhole space has many unique features other then the local mechanic. That being said the removal of local intel without the addition of another better means of gathering system information should be avoided.
The one big difference between 0.0 and W-space is that people travel through 0.0 to get to other systems. This traveling is often solo and without the use of a scout. Local being great tool for understanding potential activity within a system.
Lets get back on topic. So modules... |
Meditril
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:06:00 -
[329] - Quote
Here is my list of modules I would like to see for small scale deep space operations:
- Ore Refining Module: Allows refining of ore from cargo hold slowly and with bad factor.
- Ammo Building Module: Load with ammo BPO/BPC and build slowly a small charge of ammo.
- Drone Building Module: Load with drone BPO/BPC and build slowly a drone.
- Remote Fitting Bay: Allow refitting of nearby ships which have no capsuleer onboard.
For pvp operations:
- Web Nullifier: Reduces the effectivity of enemy web on your ship by 50%. Implement with stacking penalty.
|
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
27
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 16:37:00 -
[330] - Quote
Decoy Ships - a decoy ship that is anchored in space for 10 minutes and shows up on D-scan and overview as a regular ship, but with a paper-thin tank. Only 1 decoy can be deployed per individual at any time, but once they move out of system their name remains in local for the duration that the decoy is active.
Remote Sensor Overload Module - essentially places active electronics upgrade modules and ewar modules into the same state as an overloaded module, if the module is already overloaded the chance to receive heat damage is doubled.
Sonar Bomb - can be launched in any security space (give SBs a reason to equip a bomb launcher) - does no damage but does allow cloaked ships to show up briefly on D-scan within a 14 AU radius (they remain cloaked).
Assault FOF Missiles - Rockets, Torps, and HAMs could use some FOF lovin'.
Fix FOF/Defender Missiles - not a new module, but the current implementation is fairly unused. Also could use some faction or T2 variants (once the mechanics are fixed). ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 65 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |