EVE-Search ForumWatch http://eve-search.com/ The alternative EVE-Online Forum browser. en-us Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0000 EVE-Search RSS Module v1.1 chribba@evemail <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by J'Mkarr Soban]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#288
Quote:
There is no justification for a POS module designed as an enemy capital suppression device to exclude covert and black ops forces using the covert cynosural field.


There is actually very good justification for this - it is still a cyno field. Just because the process of creating it is subdued so that the event is not detectable, it still remains that it is a cyno field that is created. If it's not a cyno field, then I agree, a cyno jammer shouldn't affect it, but then it shouldn't jump ships. See where I'm coming from? As such, the solution doesn't work.

Quote:
...add an intermediate level between the existing sov 3 and sov 4


Possible, but then it would still happen eventually, and the larger alliances (where the problem is) wouldn't have a problem with this, because it would take so much effort to mount an offensive so deep into their territory that you'd still face the same problem eventually.

Good thinking all round though!

-J

-----------------------------
"Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow."
"Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?"
"..."]]> Wed, 19 Mar 2009 18:45:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7608103 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by J'Mkarr Soban]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#287
I don't think the primary fault is in the mechanics. This, to me, sounds like a problem with strategic management for the attackers: if it is possible to take one down, and just requires huge resources to do so, then the implication is that people must spend huge resources to do it. I for one welcomed cyno jammers with open arms - I'm a strategic planner, and before their introduction the concept of sovereignty meant nothing - literally nothing. No concept of ownership or achievement, no concept of territory. At least with this measure, alliances can say 'this is our space and we will defend it'.

Now, I can see the case that the resources required to defend (in this case the costs associated with implementing and maintaining a cyno jammer) are out of balance to the resources required to attack and disable the same. Shredder POSs do seem fairly nasty because of that only option of fielding a sub-cap fleet - but is that perhaps a flaw with defence in general? From a strategic point of view, if you have a number of deployables that your operation needs within a given system, it is better to create multiple POSs with better-than-average defences than it is to put them all together in one place and not have much resources (PG, CPU) left for defence. So your point of shredder POSs doesn't apply exclusively to cyno jamming POSs, it applies to all POSs. Yes, they are more commonly used to defend cyno jamming POSs, but you could do the same for an ammo dump.

Quote:
...[make] cyno jammers considerably weaker in terms of hitpoints and allowing multiple cyno jammers to be anchored.


I like this, alot. It would go some distance to breaking the blob, and would create an element of unpredictability when it comes to judging the attacker's next course of action.

Quote:
...give the cyno jammer a CPU fitting requirement. This would mean the cyno jammer would not work while the tower it is attached to is reinforced.


There is no logical reason for the jammer to have any CPU requirement, other than to plug a gameplay hole. All it does in game terms is cast interference over the system such that cyno fields cannot be created due to the interference. There is no 'thinking' required by the machine, it just pumps out this field (it can be assumed that power regulation is implicit).

Quote:
...weaken the cyno jammer while the tower it is attached to is in reinforced mode.


I think all external POS structures should follow this rule - the tower is focussing all its reserves into maintaining the defence of the essential internal components, it makes sense that something has to give because of that. But not armour, that's physical - shields. Towers in reinforced mode should not have the CPU available to actively manage the shields of external structures.

Quote:
...doubling or tripling of grid requirements, which would significantly reduce the amount of firepower a cyno jammer POS could mount.


I like this - the power required to blanket an entire system with the interference required would be immense, so this accurately shows that and as a byproduct eases offence.

Quote:
...divorce cyno jammers from POSes entirely


Another possibility, and I especially like the cosmic anomoly and scouting requirement. I actually can't think of a devil's advocate position for this one. Perhaps too vulnerable?

[cont...]]]> Wed, 19 Mar 2009 18:44:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7608102 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Asgauard]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#286 Edited by: Asgauard on 19/03/2008 16:58:13
Is it Just Possible to have a Cyno Jamming POS tower instead of the Mod anchored in space? Maybe with 1-5 guns only to be anchored around the shield, so it would force hostile forces to mass and destroy it?
]]> Wed, 19 Mar 2009 16:57:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7607346 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Thomina Yorke]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#285 ]]> Tue, 18 Mar 2009 01:20:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7595347 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Kagura Nikon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#284
Something very simple as making the T2 Tier 2 battleship exactly same ship as tier 1 but with T2 resists and the 100% damage bonus, paired with a 80% tracking reduction ( 0.2 multiplier), would have been a great step into making POS warfare less stupid. But nooo. CCp had to waste the most atencipated ships ever in useles carebearmobiles.
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2009 15:18:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7591596 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Malachon Draco]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#283
Alternatively, make the jammer also remove the jumpbridge capability and both sides are restricted to what they can get into the system.
]]> Mon, 17 Mar 2009 13:46:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7590964 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by NAFnist]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#282 Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time:

- Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems
- Increasing fitting requirements
- Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours)
- Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system
- An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik)

I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome


Imagine cyno jam was linked to 3 or more pos's. Perhaps you'd have to attack several jammers in system before being able to cyno your cap fleet in. I will even go as far in saying these 'cyno-jammers' should be something different. Something worth fighting over.

I can take it even further

If it took a certain amount of jammers to deny any cynoing in a hole constellation with sov. Lets say a system can hold 1 jammer. Perhaps this jamming installation has an effect on nearby space when the defence grid is activated. Like deadspace has an effect. An attacker would perhaps be forced to attack multiple installations in two or three systems (at the same time?) in order to take down the grid.

There's desperat need of defocusing on single systems, if you ask me.
-


]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2009 15:30:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7585165 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Keorythe]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#281 Originally by: Vitrael
Please explain to me how allowing covert cynos in cynojammed systems is non-viable. I doubt if any amount of stealth bombers and force recon ships are a threat to your or anyone else's deathstars. It will, however, afford a very reasonable counter-tactic to the jump bridge.


Covert ops cyno's are attached to a ship that can log in and out whenever it choses to do so. It is not stationary and can cloak whenever danger presents itself. The threat to one is virtually null and requires a great deal of luck on the hunter's part to catch one and a great deal of stupidity on the pilot to get caught. They dont require maintenance to be used and can collect dust in a corp hanger until someone feels the need to do a black op.

But the biggest thing is simple really. Explain to me how a battleship hull ship using a small highslot module can have the power to break a cyno-jammer when it requires nothing at all minus the basic fuel needed to make a jump. Now compare that to the cpu and power requirements needed to sustain a jumpbridge on a POS. /sarcasm Yeah just a slight difference there.

Maybe its just how you want to use them thats really at fault here. Running black ops in a region that has had its CJ taken down could play havoc on a defending alliance thinking their rear flanks are covered/blockaded from the enemy.


]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2009 15:10:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7570593 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Keorythe]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#280 Originally by: Vitrael
Of course it does. The original issue with sovereignty warfare is that it was too easy to drop a bazillion dreads on your enemy's POS and reinforce it again and again, so long as it was done in the timezone that the defender was weak. Then they just waited for it to come out of reinforced in a weak timezone and it was over. That's where the cynojammer came in. It was the guard dog for when master wasn't at home.


This was not the reason cyno were introduced in the first place. Its just one of the bonuses that small alliances get when they actually have a high and low activity period but isn't an issue with larger alliances who have large reaction forces available. I thought I made that clear already.


Quote:
Cyno jammers do not require fueling. They require absolutely no attention 23/7.

The offensive cyno generator would of course take time to anchor. Maybe 30 minutes, maybe an hour. It should have a reasonable amount of hitpoints and should be anchorable anywhere. After all, any place that you are cynojammed you've also got a system scanner, so it's reasonable to assume you'd have an easy time finding it. This promotes PVP away from POSes as that offensive cyno generator becomes a tactical target for the defenders and the attacking group must protect it if they want to see their capitals.


Cyno are attached to POS's which require fueling. Their power requirements increases fuel consumption. Maintaining the POS maintains the jammer. If you want a change you do it on the POS level not module. An anti-cynojammer would not need to be defended for very long. In fact unless some form of alert were given to the defending alliance there would be very little need to defend a anti-jammer at all. Once an enemy dread force is in place the anti-jammer could be taken offline and the owner could log out. Once the op is over the anti-jammer is logged on and setup for the dreads to move out (assuming that CJ's dont use cpu by that time).

Quote:
The cost of maintaining a cynojammer is nothing. You buy it once and anchor it at your POS and it goes on its merry little way giving you complete impunity to attack. Of course building an infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the defender, but if you haven't noticed in our six month campaign against you, let me tell you this: it is extremely easy to maintain defensive POSes even under enormous pressure from an attacker.

POS fuel logistics are nearly invulnerable thanks to carriers, rorquals, jump bridges, and to a certain extent, jump freighters. The POS modules themselves cost money, sure, but they're completely indestructable unless the tower is destroyed, so there isn't a threat to them. Attacking alliances need to be thrown a big, juicy bone, and able defenders should be the first to admit it when they see how easy it is to lay claim to a wedge of space these days. Attackers are discouraged not by the prospect of loss but by the ridiculous hurdles they are asked to jump to simply put their capitals in the system.


The cost of maintaining a series of towers is quite high and time consuming. Their rewards from mineral profits make it worthwhile even under your never ending campaign. All of the fuelling mechanisms you have mentioned are part of the huge infrastructure took months of effort to setup and create to facilitate that effort. Attackers need no such bone, especially attackers who aren't willing to put serious money and effort into the attack other than raiding from empire space in non-cap ships. An unit that digs its trenches and makes its bunkers/castles effectively should have a large advantage over a raiding horde. A raiding horde should have to put lots of effort and numbers to siege an area until it wins. The rewards of taking an area are already there but means you'll have to do the same thing that the previous owners did only better.


]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2009 14:53:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7570290 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Mr Mozzie]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#279 Originally by: Salastil
I've hated Cyno-Jammer since they were implemented. They are going to be a direct correlation to the stagnation of 0.0 warfare. Before the changes to Sovereignty Alliances were removed at a slothlike rate. If they remain as they are they will be even slower.


Jammers have their distinct advantages. Before, pos warfare consisted of repetitious reinforcing of poses until the defender made a timer mistake. Then the poses would come out of reinfoced out of their prime time and would automatically die. How was that a good system? Cyno jammers have also cut down on pos spam to an extent.

Instead of relying on paint by numbers strategies people now need to come up with imaginative solutions to taking sdown cyno jammers (which seems to be the problem in the present situation). It can be done, but now the attacker actually needs to match the opposing forces instead of attacking out of the defenders prime time.
]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2009 00:56:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7566494 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Aidelon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#278 Edited by: Aidelon on 13/03/2008 21:25:51
A few points....

There's only a few things wrong with the cyno jammers, so I ask CCP to not go overboard and implement an 8 hour (or even 24 hour) refuleing requirement, because that makes the cyno jammer a near-worthless tool...a lot of people like jammers, but would just like to see small changes to make things a bit more fair.

I believe that the Jammer should:

1) Take the bulk of the fitting requirements for a POS. A few guns or hardeners are fine. A deathstar POS + Jammer is not.
2) Cyno Jammers should stop Jump Bridges in the same system. This would mean that jammers would provide a benefit to the alliance putting them up, and a drawback. The benefit it keeping enemy caps out of system. The drawback is it also affects your own ships the same way. The jammers would be offlined more so friendly caps can enter the system, causing more openings for enemies.
3) Add a timer to Cyno Jammer incapacitation time. IE: Once incapacitated, jammer cannot be repped for 1 hour.
]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2009 21:23:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7564919 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Kenji Noguchi]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#277
For example, a limit of 600km away from the POS. That would force you to plan your attack and fleet formation for the approach travel, it would give time to the defender to gather a fleet to defend the POS, and we could even start to see fleet battles with maneuvers and the like.

A variation could be to limit that distance only for large vessels, so small (cruiser and frigate) ships could warp in normally while only capitals and maybe BBs have to warp in far away.

-------------------------------------
Kenji Noguchi, Caldari State warrior.
APEX Unlimited Security Division.]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2009 18:58:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7563694 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Salastil]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#276
This nullifies most newer Alliances as they do not posses such capability. So they team up with an older group to gain such capability or buy the land and live a life of servitude. Nothing short of a full character and item reset can fix this game currently, everything is a stop gap until we reach critical mass with the fix to this particular problem and up the lagbomb fights from 500v500 to 1000v1000 and push the newest software to previously unheard of limits, frustrating both players and CCP.

Sad
]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2009 15:14:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7561678 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Svenjabi Xiang]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#275
I think that the cyno jammer ultimately needs to be attached to whatever mechanism is used to represent sovereignty (a beacon, a mod, a structure, whatever). What form that takes is out of the scope of this thread.

As a stopgap, and given the last dev post that I saw, I am in favor of an increase to fitting requirements, especially cpu, with a decrease in structure points as well. In addition, I would like to see it take a rare feul, that is expensive, such that turning the cyno on, at all, is a tactical decision, not a pos feature.

My reasoning is that in our collective history, it's just not the case that a small group of people ever withstood a large marauding army on the basis of a commonly available piece of technology. At least not for very long. It is the case that small groups (sometimes a single person) has compromised the defenses of an installation. The solutions in those cases have always required increased vigilance on the part of the defenders while the problem was sorted. It is assumed that Eve will hold to this model.

As for the "we put in all this isk and you shouldn't be able to destroy our investment" factor, that is like making the argument, on a smaller scale, that someone shouldn't be able to destroy a faction fitted battleship with t1 cruisers because the t1 cruiser pilots didn't "want it enough".
]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2009 13:41:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7560769 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Djuma Nihilist]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#274 Originally by: JabJabVVV
Vitrael, while I understand where you are coming from it is very evident that you are seeing this very much distorted through the prism of your own experience. For example you suggest that jammer HP be reduced this is fine for small scale skirmishes where the jammer may take up to a very long time to offline with a smallish gang but what you fail to think about is in large scale warfare where a 200 man BS gang can take down a jammer in under 10 minutes... that makes it very difficult to organise a response even if you have prior warning, let alone if you don't (ie the jammer would be pointless if its hitpoints were reduced and nothing else changed). Similairly the idea of a jammer that can only be onlined for 8 hours a day; what about multi alliance warfare where there are no really defined high/low times for either side? A time limited jammer in such a situation would be as useful as no jammer at all. Finally you say that a fleet BS costs 200mill... you can lose a T2 fitted fleet BS for 70mill and you can lose a 'disposable' BS fitted specifically for POS take downs for 40mill.


So let's all join huge alliances blob each other out to death and call 2008 : THE YEAR OF THE UBERBLOB. I'm loosing faith seeing people actually enjoying this type of game.

]]> Thu, 13 Mar 2009 11:43:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7559701 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Scatim Helicon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#273 Originally by: John Blackthorn
You take in 50 b.s., the defenders jump bridge in a dozen carriers and a couple of motherships and tear apart your BS fleet while repping the jammer faster than you can shoot it down.


Fixed for reality. The aforementioned point is that allowing the defenders to use their caps and supercaps whilst the attackers are restricted to Battleships and below means the cyno jammer has failed in its stated goal (bringing back subcapital on subcapital combat).

-----------
]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 23:38:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7555952 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Vitrael]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#272 Originally by: JabJabVVV
Vitrael, while I understand where you are coming from it is very evident that you are seeing this very much distorted through the prism of your own experience. For example you suggest that jammer HP be reduced this is fine for small scale skirmishes where the jammer may take up to a very long time to offline with a smallish gang but what you fail to think about is in large scale warfare where a 200 man BS gang can take down a jammer in under 10 minutes... that makes it very difficult to organise a response even if you have prior warning, let alone if you don't (ie the jammer would be pointless if its hitpoints were reduced and nothing else changed). Similairly the idea of a jammer that can only be onlined for 8 hours a day; what about multi alliance warfare where there are no really defined high/low times for either side? A time limited jammer in such a situation would be as useful as no jammer at all. Finally you say that a fleet BS costs 200mill... you can lose a T2 fitted fleet BS for 70mill and you can lose a 'disposable' BS fitted specifically for POS take downs for 40mill.

Sure I don't account for 200 man BS fleets, I don't think I've ever been in an alliance with 200 people. However I would really like to steer Eve away from 200 man fleets (at least until the game can better accommodate it) and I would hope that CCP would want the same.

However, because uberblob fleets are an inevitability with the size of coalitions these days, you are right. Lowering the HP of the cynojammer would make it pretty much irrelevant if a significant number of entities were fielding 200 battleships.

Not all of my suggestions are offered up because I think they are the best answer. I still believe the best answer is that the cyno jammer should be limited to a certain period of operation per day. It's a solution to timezone disparity but it will force real good old fashioned capital warfare during the hours of the defending alliance's choosing.


]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 21:31:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7555146 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Bein Glorious]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=10#271
The thing is, if you just made the jammer use more powergrid, that means that a "shredder" POS can fit fewer guns. With fewer guns (lets say, 3-6 fewer medium tech 1 turret batteries), the tower is easier to tank, which means that the attackers can fit fewer tanking modules and more damage/range modules, which means that taking down the jammer takes less time. So reducing hitpoints is not essential, and reducing a POS's firepower in lieu of that can have the same effect in a roundabout way.

Similarly, making the jammer use CPU so that it's disabled for as long as the tower is reinforced is not necessary so long as taking down the jammer in the first place is easier. Same thing with constant fueling needs, or only allowing the jammer to come online for 8-12 hour periods; if the jammer is just easier to attack, some of those other problems go away.

A lot of people have already mentioned in this thread that a system with 8 titans and 40 motherships and so on and so forth is not worth attacking and people should try attacking elsewhere. The problem with this statement is that allowing jump bridges to move capitals into cyno jammed systems means that this doesn't work, because the defender can just move the capitals to the next system over with no real drawback besides expended liquid ozone, so "just attack somewhere else" doesn't work in the practical sense. (And it's also worth mentioning that a Jump Bridge Array has powergrid requirements and hitpoints identical to a cyno jammer, so it's not like going after a bridge before the jammer is any easier) That, and, if the attacker has taken down the jammer in one system, then after the towers have been reinforced, the defender can just put the huge capital blob in there and bring the cyno jammer back online by repairing it or just destroying it completely and anchoring a new one. In short, "just give it up and attack another system" shouldn't be considered "a-okay".

Somebody said earlier that CCP should tread lightly and consider that the current galaxy-wide conflict is not standard fare for territorial conflicts. I'd say this is very true, after all, consider how many alliances are arrayed against a comparatively smaller (but nonetheless well-established and numerous) entity. Some may choose not to admit it, but the colossal difficulty of long-distance invasions - which includes dealing with cyno jammers, capital and supercapital ships, and especially supercapitals protected by cyno jammers - makes such a coalition an appropriate amount of force. In this case, numerical advantage is the only thing that can facilitate something that would never be possible any other way. Therefore, I suggest that CCP consider thinking of smaller-scale alliances as well.

After all, if you look at who created this thread, it's a prominent member of The Star Fraction, who are by no means a large or territorially aggressive superpower. Even in the first few pages, people from almost every alliance size can agree that there's a point where it's just too tough, such as alliances like Triumvirate, ROADKILL, Atrum Tempestas Foedus, Ushra'Khan and Electus Matari, and Red Alliance, a very broad spectrum of viewpoints and playing styles, and a good number of which have had no contact with or dislike each other. Cyno jammers being too tough is not an observation unique only to gigantic power-bloc alliances.

And as a final statement, I just wanted to say thank you to JabJabVVV for his excellent replies and for being able to ignore political bias even just for a moment as Greyscale humbly requested. I'm also very glad that we could see eye-to-eye on the powergrid need of faction turret batteries.]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 21:18:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7555145 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by JabJabVVV]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#270 Originally by: John Blackthorn
I just don't understand the issue with the cyno jammer, there very easy to defeat. To easy if you ask me. You take in 50 b.s. you shoot it down in one hour and thats it. No pos can defend against 50 b.s.


I think the main issue is that while a jammer will go down quickly to a large gang they are disproportionately tough in smaller alliance warfare; a gang of 200 BS will take down a jammer in a few minutes but a gang of 50 will take much longer and if the jammer is at a fully gunned faction POS then a gang of less than 50 may not be able to take the jammer down at all. Hence I like the reinforced timer idea; it balances the cyno jammer at both ends of the spectrum. A small gang will be able to take down the jammer in a reasonable length of time but you will not be able to take down the jammer quick enough with a big blob to render the module pointless (as can happen at the moment).
-----------
When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 20:35:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7554795 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by John Blackthorn]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#269 ]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 20:10:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7554664 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by JabJabVVV]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#268
Finally you say 'It's too cheap to run an empire these days.' If that is the case then could you kindly explain to me why more people don't do it? Most people stay in empire and even 0.0 alliance members often make most of their money in empire, this strongly suggests that it is too expensive to run an empire, not too cheap.

However as I said, I do understand where you are coming from and a corp mate suggested a solution to me earlier that I think might satisfy both large and small alliances alike (as well as being moderately simple).

1) Increase the grid requirements of faction guns inline with normal guns (to reduce the impact of faction 'deathstar' POS)
2) Reduce the jammer combined hitpoints to 5 million or fewer (so that smaller alliances can take them down in a reasonable time period)
3) Give the cyno jammer a reinforced timer like a POS except limit this to 10 or 15 minutes and have it send a DED mail when it is attacked (this means that anyone can take a jammer down but the defender always is given some notice and has an opportunity to respond).

This solution ensures that the jammer serves it's purpose regardless of size of attacking forces. It is weak enough that it can be taken down by smaller alliances in a reasonably short time period BUT thanks to the reinforced period it cannot be blobbed by large alliances and removed before the defender has a chance to respond... everyone's a winner \o/
-----------
When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 18:41:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7554025 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by maralt]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#267 Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 18:16:20




I have always disliked nerfs in any game as it is a negative response to a problem and although i feel that there needs to be more evidence before i will admit to jammers being overpowered and in need of a change, i think the best idea so far was too bring in a new class of ship.

The new class of ship that would be in between a battleship and a dread is a very exciting and interesting prospect as it could easily tank several DDD and pos guns but be able to use gates as well as cyno fields and jump bridges.

It should have poor tracking and very high damage just like a dread in siege mode so it could be used in pos wars but be unable to hit a moving ship smaller than another capital or pos/module.

I think this is the best idea so far and should be included in the game even if a good quality pvp alliance proves that with good planning a jammer can be destroyed.




]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 18:13:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7553752 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Kelsin]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#266 ]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 17:33:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7553484 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Mr Bananas]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#265 Originally by: Vitrael
That's where the cynojammer came in. It was the guard dog for when master wasn't at home.

The problem now is that the guard dog stands watch even when master is home, or when he's a couple doors over standing next to a jump portal. This is a real solution: the cyno jammer can only run 12 hours a day. Or maybe only 8. That way, the defending alliance can turn on their cynojammer when everyone goes beddy-bye and feel (relatively) safe, however, during their active hours they are going to fight POS warfare the good old fashioned way.


I'm really impressed with your rationale, and I agree with your conclusions. I really hope this gets some attention.
]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 17:21:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7553415 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Vitrael]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#264 Originally by: Gaogan
This is balanced by the cost involved in operating them, and the fact that a large alliance controlling a large amount of space should in tern be attacked by another large alliance who can field a 100 man bs fleet to take out the jammer, which a small contingent won't be able to stop.

You think it should take 100 battleship capable pilots simultaneously online and coordinated to take out a single POS module just so that the capital pilots can come in and continue the job? You have to be kidding me.

Your alliance can't field 100 battleship pilots. Neither can mine. I doubt if even CVA, having six times our numbers, could reliably field 100 battleships. Furthermore there is no alliance that can fight in the hundreds of players and avoid the terrible effects of lag. What you are asking for is a game that turns on blobbing.

By the way, you wanted to talk about cost justification? 100 men in battleships? I'd say it's reasonable (even generous to you) to assume a t2 fit and rigged siege battleship cost about 200m. 100 x 200,000,000 = 20,000,000,000 (twenty billion) isk. Of course it doesnt require 100 battleships at present, it takes something more like 50 very good ones. That's still 10 billion isk easy, all to offline (not destroy) a single cheap module with the hopes that the Dreads can come in and reinforce (not destroy) the POS.

Only then after the stront is gone and all of the defenders have come to muster on that POS can the attackers possibly inflict damage on the POS investment itself, and only if they can overcome the inevitable defensive blob. Cost justification?

It's too cheap to run an empire these days.


]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 16:39:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7553107 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Vitrael]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#263 Originally by: Keorythe
Quote:
7. Allow black ops covert cynos in cynojammed systems to permit for usefulness of the black ops hull and improved skirmish abilities in cynojammed, jumpbridged systems.


Non-viable. Does not even pertain to the cyno-jammer issue. Stop trying to fit your personal wishlists into this discussion.

Of course this pertains to the cyno-jammer issue. It may not pertain to the POS warfare issue, but as far as cyno-jammers are concerned, covert cynos are on the table. Don't tell me it's my personal wishlist. You may kindly scroll back to the first dev response where they discussed this themselves.

The black ops hull is completely useless at present. The vast majority of 0.0 systems have been cynojammed. The whole point of the black ops ships was to allow for covert raiding into sovereign territory but with the cynojammer mechanic in place, no go.

Please explain to me how allowing covert cynos in cynojammed systems is non-viable. I doubt if any amount of stealth bombers and force recon ships are a threat to your or anyone else's deathstars. It will, however, afford a very reasonable counter-tactic to the jump bridge.


]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 16:13:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7552905 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Vitrael]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#262 Originally by: Keorythe
Quote:
9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals.


Non-viable. Making it so that capitals cannot use jump bridges is a more viable tactic. Many areas that have CJ's already have dedicated capitals in the area. This does not negate the problem. Likewise since it is difficult to tell when a cyno is turned off it is easy for friendlies to move more capitals into an area in a quick on/off operation.

The fact that its difficult to see the status of a POS module is not an error in my proposal but an inherent flaw in the bad implementation of POS warfare. It needs fixin' too.

I agree that capitals should not be able to use jump bridges. I still think there should be a limitation to the tonnage of ships that can suddenly appear on a battleship fleet attemping to offline a cyno.

Originally by: Keorythe
Quote:
Certainly not just one but a combination of these changes are in order.


Non-viable (minus #10). Various multiple combinations of any of these would make the cost of maintaining a CJ excessive to the point that defending group would be on the losing side of it all. Building infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the territory holders not be a major hinderance. Likewise an attacking force must be willing to dedicate a HUGE amount of resources to claim a region from another. This is not something that minor raiding alliances should be able to affect.

Oh, come off it.

The cost of maintaining a cynojammer is nothing. You buy it once and anchor it at your POS and it goes on its merry little way giving you complete impunity to attack. Of course building an infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the defender, but if you haven't noticed in our six month campaign against you, let me tell you this: it is extremely easy to maintain defensive POSes even under enormous pressure from an attacker.

POS fuel logistics are nearly invulnerable thanks to carriers, rorquals, jump bridges, and to a certain extent, jump freighters. The POS modules themselves cost money, sure, but they're completely indestructable unless the tower is destroyed, so there isn't a threat to them. Attacking alliances need to be thrown a big, juicy bone, and able defenders should be the first to admit it when they see how easy it is to lay claim to a wedge of space these days. Attackers are discouraged not by the prospect of loss but by the ridiculous hurdles they are asked to jump to simply put their capitals in the system.


]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 16:06:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7552848 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Vitrael]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#261 Originally by: Keorythe
Quote:
4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours.


Non-viable. This only helps alliances with high and low periods of member activity. It makes a CJ not even worth putting up.

Of course it does. The original issue with sovereignty warfare is that it was too easy to drop a bazillion dreads on your enemy's POS and reinforce it again and again, so long as it was done in the timezone that the defender was weak. Then they just waited for it to come out of reinforced in a weak timezone and it was over. That's where the cynojammer came in. It was the guard dog for when master wasn't at home.

The problem now is that the guard dog stands watch even when master is home, or when he's a couple doors over standing next to a jump portal. This is a real solution: the cyno jammer can only run 12 hours a day. Or maybe only 8. That way, the defending alliance can turn on their cynojammer when everyone goes beddy-bye and feel (relatively) safe, however, during their active hours they are going to fight POS warfare the good old fashioned way.

Originally by: Keorythe
Quote:
5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective.


Non-viable. No structure should be defenseless. It would be akin to parking an empty Titan at a moon.

Maybe I should've been more specific. I was thinking of moving cyno jammers to a new area type. Perhaps they need to be built on some kind of natural phenomena on system that can be discovered via exploration. Perhaps it can be defended with turrets to some extent. I just disagree with the mentality that the cynojammer should be attached to an uber I-sank-your-battleship POS.

Originally by: Keorythe
Quote:
6. Create anchorable, offensive cyno generators unaffected by cynojammers to facilitate the "siege" process.


Non-viable. No point in having a CJ if someone can drop an anti-CJ in some safespot without any need for a POS. We're talking about a POS structure which consumes resources 24/7 being cancelled out what is essentially a re-worked mobile warp bubble.

Cyno jammers do not require fueling. They require absolutely no attention 23/7.

The offensive cyno generator would of course take time to anchor. Maybe 30 minutes, maybe an hour. It should have a reasonable amount of hitpoints and should be anchorable anywhere. After all, any place that you are cynojammed you've also got a system scanner, so it's reasonable to assume you'd have an easy time finding it. This promotes PVP away from POSes as that offensive cyno generator becomes a tactical target for the defenders and the attacking group must protect it if they want to see their capitals.


]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 15:57:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7552847 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by fuze]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#260 Edited by: fuze on 11/03/2008 15:58:46
Proposal
Cyno Jammers shouldn't be able to jam Covert cyno's.
In addition you can use Covert Cyno Jammers which require similar CPU/Power like jump bridges (and no fuel) and about same amount of Armor/Hitpoints as a Cyno Jammer.

This adds an extra stage of sieging a system. Enables the defenders to cyno in coverts when the enemy is having a go at the cyno jammer and has closed down all gates. Requires more planning for the defenders as well. Good opportunity for black op ships as well.

Cyno Jammers
Change anchoring time from 30 min to 1hr.
Give the attackers a bigger window of jumping in caps. But when the system is laggy the risk of loosing them still is there.

As to the Jump Bridge
When a Titan uses one the DD timer gets set and it has the cool down period for a DD.

Making it harder to move around with Titans and DD in multiple systems. It requires more planning for the defenders.

As to the other suggestions I don't think it would be fair nerfing it too much to favor the zerglings. Taking out cyno's should still be bloody nasty and hard.]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 15:56:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7552846 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Keorythe]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#259 Quote:
1. Decrease cynojammer HP to improve destructibility and make BS fleet attacks more viable.


Viable. Description explains it fairly well.

Quote:
2. Increase cynojammer fitting to lessen shredder POS defenses and make BS fleet attacks more viable.


Viable, to a point. A gang of 10 BS should not be able to take down this kind of module. A gang of 30 or 40 is more likely what we are looking for. The defenders who have spent months building infrastructure should have the advantage.

Quote:
3. Require constant fueling of cynojammers to restrict 23/7 operation.


Non-viable. This addresses nothing. It just adds more maintenance and upkeep which will be a pain to do but still very doable. Even if the fuel requirements are rediculous.

Quote:
4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours.


Non-viable. This only helps alliances with high and low periods of member activity. It makes a CJ not even worth putting up.

Quote:
5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective.


Non-viable. No structure should be defenseless. It would be akin to parking an empty Titan at a moon.

Quote:
6. Create anchorable, offensive cyno generators unaffected by cynojammers to facilitate the "siege" process.


Non-viable. No point in having a CJ if someone can drop an anti-CJ in some safespot without any need for a POS. We're talking about a POS structure which consumes resources 24/7 being cancelled out what is essentially a re-worked mobile warp bubble.

Quote:
7. Allow black ops covert cynos in cynojammed systems to permit for usefulness of the black ops hull and improved skirmish abilities in cynojammed, jumpbridged systems.


Non-viable. Does not even pertain to the cyno-jammer issue. Stop trying to fit your personal wishlists into this discussion.

Quote:
8. Limit cynojammers to a number of sovereign systems per constellation so that only key systems can be so utterly defended.


Non-viable. While this would allow for outer rings to be taken easier it still leaves the same problems in the core worlds. In most cases taking down a CJ from outlying areas has not posed a problem for alliances who are willing to coordinate attacks and use resources due to an enemy being spread out. This problem already manifests itself with the BoB coreworlds which are heavily defended but the outers were taken quickly.

Quote:
9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals.


Non-viable. Making it so that capitals cannot use jump bridges is a more viable tactic. Many areas that have CJ's already have dedicated capitals in the area. This does not negate the problem. Likewise since it is difficult to tell when a cyno is turned off it is easy for friendlies to move more capitals into an area in a quick on/off operation.

Quote:
10. Make cynojammers use CPU so reinforced towers do not continue to provide cynojamming.


Viable. If capitals were already allowed in system once then a cascade effect should be available later down the line. This of course would call for epic battles..and lots of lag.

Quote:
Certainly not just one but a combination of these changes are in order.


Non-viable (minus #10). Various multiple combinations of any of these would make the cost of maintaining a CJ excessive to the point that defending group would be on the losing side of it all. Building infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the territory holders not be a major hinderance. Likewise an attacking force must be willing to dedicate a HUGE amount of resources to claim a region from another. This is not something that minor raiding alliances should be able to affect.


]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 15:29:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7552702 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by HaulandHaul]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#258 Originally by: Arturus Vex
Edited by: Arturus Vex on 11/03/2008 04:00:02
I'd like to see it harder to take lots of space. I'd like to see more fractional warefare and disputed territories around. I'd like for smaller alliance to be able to compete with the big guys. I'd also like to see less lag and spend less time pos-bashing. So here's the idea:

Make a specific cyno-jammer pos. This pos is a special pos that has to be placed in a dead space area (MWDs allowed, of course). Because of the nature of cynosural fields, it can only be approached in non-capitol ships (by both sides). It has enhanced defenses (which have to be fought through), and is of a much larger size than even a shredder/faction pos. These defenses, however, are spread out through multiple rooms of the dead space complex and can be completely destroyed (no re-enforced). The defenses generally consist of bunkers, turrets and generators (perhaps even minefields?). The bunkers house POS gunners, the generators power the turrets, and the turrets are turrets (turrets should have a range restriction equivalent to that of a T2 sniper-bs)... Defense in BS and below sized ships is, of course, allowed.

In order to find the cyno-jammer pos, you have to use a special probe to scan out a 'rallying gate' (very expensive probe). This probe creates a warp-in to a randomly placed and created acceleration gate (this gate is unique to the prober that created it, and is destroyed after 24 hours).

Advantages:
1.) Titans and capitols would still be useful in defense of systems. (gates, normal poses)
2.) Alliances are still not allowed to insta-pwn systems with 1000,0000 dreads or whatever
3.) Pos bashing in battleships might actually be interesting and tactical (rather than a remote-rep blob getting one buttoned).
\

U've done to much npc'ing mate
]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 14:17:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7552187 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Arturus Vex]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#257 Edited by: Arturus Vex on 11/03/2008 04:00:02
I'd like to see it harder to take lots of space. I'd like to see more fractional warefare and disputed territories around. I'd like for smaller alliance to be able to compete with the big guys. I'd also like to see less lag and spend less time pos-bashing. So here's the idea:

Make a specific cyno-jammer pos. This pos is a special pos that has to be placed in a dead space area (MWDs allowed, of course). Because of the nature of cynosural fields, it can only be approached in non-capitol ships (by both sides). It has enhanced defenses (which have to be fought through), and is of a much larger size than even a shredder/faction pos. These defenses, however, are spread out through multiple rooms of the dead space complex and can be completely destroyed (no re-enforced). The defenses generally consist of bunkers, turrets and generators (perhaps even minefields?). The bunkers house POS gunners, the generators power the turrets, and the turrets are turrets (turrets should have a range restriction equivalent to that of a T2 sniper-bs)... Defense in BS and below sized ships is, of course, allowed.

In order to find the cyno-jammer pos, you have to use a special probe to scan out a 'rallying gate' (very expensive probe). This probe creates a warp-in to a randomly placed and created acceleration gate (this gate is unique to the prober that created it, and is destroyed after 24 hours).

Advantages:
1.) Titans and capitols would still be useful in defense of systems. (gates, normal poses)
2.) Alliances are still not allowed to insta-pwn systems with 1000,0000 dreads or whatever
3.) Pos bashing in battleships might actually be interesting and tactical (rather than a remote-rep blob getting one buttoned).
]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 03:56:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7549927 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Sandy Brown]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#256
However cyno jammers were designed to stop an even worse problem as I understand it. The stoped cap ships online where alliances would repeatedly reinforce other alliances posses outside their prime time, only to wait for a timing mistake.

The problem is that cyno jammers strength is a trade off between invincibility and vulnerability for the defender. Weakening cyno jammers means that the attacker will be able to roll in, attack bring down the jammer and bring in the caps. The old problem will return. After all the attacker retains a distinct advantage in that they can choose the time and method of their attack. Perhaps a better short term comprimise does lie with weaker cyno jammers...

What is needed in the long term is new pos warfare meahcanics that gives a well organised defender the chance of defending themselves, but a well organised and committed attacker a way to win soverignty.
]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 03:28:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7549810 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by JabJabVVV]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#255
Decreasing the jammer hitpoints: not a great idea imo; A jammer will go down in around 15 minutes to a group of 50 BS as it is, any less and it becomes difficult for even an organised defender to arrange a defence (and so the module becomes pointless as it is destroyed without gaining any benefit)

Increase cyno jammer fitting: I think this is worth looking at (as illustrated above)

Constant fuelling: A terrible idea, more grinding and tedium that would disproportionately affect smaller corps and alliances.

Disallow 23/7 operation: A rubbish idea, what would be the point of having a jammer at all? Also it would encourage TZ warfare and alarm clock ops.

Disassociate jammers from POS to create a medium gang objective... Like station services? I have no doubt it would be equally as rewarding.

Offensive cyno generators: what would be the point of a cyno jammer if your enemy can simply bypass it without even fighting? The Jammer would inconvenience you while you weren't under attack but not your opponent when he finally attacks you. This structure would put the onus of attacking structures immediately on the defender rather than on the attacker, that doesn't make sense to me.

Allow black ops to use cyno jammed systems: I don't have much experience of black ops but this seems like a reasonable proposal.

Cause cyno jammers to disable jump bridges: That would seem to remove pretty much the whole point of cyno jammers. If you cant get in cap ships or BS support quickly while you are defending then you are in a worse position than the attacker, the cyno jammer + bridge combo allows for better defence through moving reinforcements quickly into the system before the enemy can take down the cyno jammer and bring their own caps in. Without the jump bridge the cyno jammer is pointless.

Limit cyno jammers on a constellation basis: not necessary in my opinion. Indeed the idea of jamming an entire region (at a very high cost in infrastructure and monthly fuel) so that it had to be attacked from the edge inwards kind of appeals to me (although I dont feel strongly on this issue).

Make cyno jammers use cpu: Not a major issue, can't say it really bothers me one way or the other. If the tower is reinforced then the chances are the jammer has been bashed as well and will not be able to be re-onlined even if it is repaired.

Finally I'm going to comment on the people who say it is very hard to attack a cyno jammer when there are titans present: to a degree I agree with you. To attack a deathstar + cyno jammer POS you have to change your setup and to defend against doomsdays then you have to change your setup... it's hard to do both. However I think that if cyno jammer POS were made less potent then this would be less of an issue. It is also worth remembering that titans are incredibly expensive ships (close to the cost of 1000 BS each) and cyno jammed systems are one of the few situations where they are actually useful in combat.

Not covered: I think that POS in general are pretty poorly implemented, titans too for that matter.
-----------
When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 01:06:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7549155 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by JabJabVVV]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#254
At the moment the cyno jammer affects the balance of power in different ways depending upon the situation:

1) If the cyno jammer can be brought down quickly, before the defender can respond then the jammer provides little cost or benefit to either side (e.g an overstretched alliance spanning more systems than they can easily defend).

2) If the cyno jammer is defended by an organised alliance covering a small area of space then the defender has a reasonably large advantage as it will be difficult to bring down the jammer before the defender can respond.

3) If the attacker is not very big and the defender is organised then the defender has a large advantage due to the power of the 'deathstar' POS that the jammer is anchored at (a faction deathstar POS is lethal to small and medium battleship groups even if it is not fully gunned).

points 1 and 2 lead to a situation where an overstretched or weaker alliance will not gain much benefit from cyno jammers as they will not be able to defend them (see the fall of Querious or Period Basis for examples of where cyno jammers have been little help) however if a powerful alliance is pushed back into their core systems then the cyno jammer provides a reasonable advantage (see the defence of Delve for an example of this). To me this seems a good situation, it means that 0.0 territorial warfare can be fluid and dynamic when outlying territories are contested but to actually finally evict an organised alliance from 0.0 completely then you must be prepared to put in maximum effort... it stops Eve being like that well known board game 'risk' where the winner is decided in the first 10% of the game and the final 90% is just spent clearing up.

The third point seems, to me at least, not to be so ideal. However I think the issue here is more to do with POS (specifically faction fitted POS) than the cyno jammer itself. A fully gunned, faction fitted deathstar POS is very difficult to attack with BS but when there is a cyno jammer in system you are forced to do more or less exactly that. Increasing the grid requirement of cyno jammers and faction guns would alleviate this problem but still maintain the dynamic created by points 1 and 2.

-----------
When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.]]> Tue, 11 Mar 2009 01:05:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7549154 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by NightKhaos]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#253 Edited by: NightKhaos on 10/03/2008 23:55:58
Originally by: Sha4d13
Edited by: Sha4d13 on 10/03/2008 11:06:37
Originally by: NightKhaos
Edited by: NightKhaos on 10/03/2008 10:52:42
I apoligise as I have no read this topic in the entirety. As such I am not sure what has been discussed previously. My take on the issue:

Reduce the range of Cyno jammers to about 2 A.U, make them independent of POS, and give them less HP. This means in order to jam a system you have to put a full "grid" of cyno jams over the entire system.

This would allow attackers to jump captials in, but only if they have a scout team in system looking for an unjammed point. Which gives the defender time to neutralize the scout team

It would also allow the defends to set a "jump point" in the middle of nowhere, where they send a small ship with a cyno field generator using a bookmark, and fleets can jump into there.

What do you think?


Cant see how that would assist at all tbh.

Either- it would make jammers useless, as it would be impossible to cover a whole system. Or it would be just another enormous timesink / chore setting them up and fuelling them.

As for a scout team- there are constantly hostiles in these systems, often cloaked. So thats hardly a challenge!


That was my point. Make it impossible the defend every corner of your system. Yes I know, it seems an extremist solution, but if you take in context of the idea in my signature it makes sense. And even without corp owned stargates, it could achieve the balance this entire thread has been trying to achieve.

Although, after reading some of the posts, I am tarting to think I should have left my mouth shut and let the big boys argue it out. Better ideas have been suggested, like the cyno jam field also blocking bridges. :)

Reshape EVE for the future! Sell the 0.0 gates to player owned corps, and encourage an open ended universe.]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 23:55:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7548793 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Scatim Helicon]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#252 Originally by: Vitrael
I think all of the decent, objective views of the Cynojammer in this thread are in agreement: cyno jammers should not be allowed to simultaneously silence all capital movements indefinitely and sit in POSes that can easily ravage enormous battleship fleets.

There are all kinds of viable changes that could be made:

There are some pretty good suggestions in this list.

Quote:
1. Decrease cynojammer HP to improve destructibility and make BS fleet attacks more viable.

Possible, although that makes it even easier for defenders to rep up their disabled jammer (or even blow it up and fit a new one) before the attacker can take full advantage. Giving the jammer less shield/armour HP and a vast amount of structure would at least reduce the 'blow up old jammer, anchor a replacement' trick and force the defender to carry out repairs.

Quote:
2. Increase cynojammer fitting to lessen shredder POS defenses and make BS fleet attacks more viable.

This is good, although it hints at a wider issue in EVE of the omni-POS. Like ships, POSs should be built to specialise in their assigned task and not fitted with everything and the kitchen sink. A cyno jammer (or for that matter jump bridges, moon mining equipment, cyno generators, CHAs or SMAs) should take up a more significant slice of available resources rather than leave space for huge stacks of hardeners and guns.

Quote:
3. Require constant fueling of cynojammers to restrict 23/7 operation.

Not so convinced here, it only takes 1 logistics guy to sit at the POS in an Iteron V full of ozone feeding the module, and most large alliances can spare at least one player for this around the clock. Its also one of those proposals which would make the game even less fun for the poor sap on cyno fuelling duty, and I'm not convinced that actively pushing logistics players to quit the game and/or kill themselves is the right approach to game balance!

Quote:
4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours.

Could work, but somewhat dependant on the timezone meta-game - for example a Euro-heavy alliance fighting against a US-heavy alliance can just time their cyno to operate during US primetime, whereas for two alliances operating in the same timezone this would be less effective.

Quote:
5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective.

Having them anchored at planets/safespots/the system star, you mean? Odd but workable. Might be a little too favourable for the attacker though if the defender has to watch the jammer 23/7.

Quote:
9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals.

Alternatively, stop capships from using jumpbridges (freighters would be an exception) and write up some technobabble explanation about jump drive - enabled ships being adversely affected by using jump bridges other than their own. Maybe this hurts things like Blackops BSs a little but the previously mentioned suggestion that covert cynos would be unaffected by cyno jammers would reduce the effect of this.

As an additional thought, how about an active cyno jammer preventing doomsdays? The fact that the doomsday used to require a cyno for remote activation means there's some precedent for technobabble explanations about a DD involving some sort of cyno-like effect in its activation and justifying it being inhibited by the jammer.

Quote:
10. Make cynojammers use CPU so reinforced towers do not continue to provide cynojamming.

Yeah this is one pretty much everyone can agree on, I think.

-----------
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 23:21:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7548549 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Rod Blaine]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#251 Originally by: Kaylana Syi
To TWD and the others in BoB,

It is great that you guys have effectively used cyno jammers, titans and jump bridges at the massive war that has dozens of alliances fighting in it. But please remember this game mechanic also forces brute force at the smaller border disputes to require massive numbers as well. If BoB can stop alliances making progress than what can an alliance of 500 do to an alliance of 200?


May be, but if not even BoB can stop an enemy with greater numbers, because every advantage that goes past counting the numbers on each side gets nerfed in name of the smaller conflict, how will any alliance ever do so ?

Cynijammers are not the issue themelves. Maybe indeed the deathstar pos's they get anchored at are.

However, with black ops, small gang warfare et all they have nothign at all to do. Cynojammers are a territorial warfare thing only. If you want to be able to use black ops in cynojammed system then by all mean amend black op cynos so thaqt they can still operate in jammed systems.

However, if you disallow the cynojammer as defensive measure we are back at square one in the ****** up pos warfare game, where numbers are everything and wars are fought in timezones rather then battles.

[center]
Old blog]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 19:13:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546918 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Kaylana Syi]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#250
It is great that you guys have effectively used cyno jammers, titans and jump bridges at the massive war that has dozens of alliances fighting in it. But please remember this game mechanic also forces brute force at the smaller border disputes to require massive numbers as well. If BoB can stop alliances making progress than what can an alliance of 500 do to an alliance of 200?

If you consider what is happening out in Providence there is just no room for cyno jammers and jump bridges to function at the same time. It is a vice grip mechanic that will always allow forces to gather out of your reach and spring on top of you at a moments notice. Capitals being only available to one side with no penalty. Also it takes away guerrilla warfare using covert ops, black ops, stealth bombers and recon ships out of the equasion on a massive galactic scale since most of 0.0 is not accessible to them geographically AND because of the pos mechanics of jammers.

Cyno jammers just have too many pro's and not enough con's. This needs to be changed for the entirety of EVE at every level. Jump Bridges and Cyno's being not being able to be used at the same time and covert cyno generators able to be active in jammed systems are severely needed at minimum. A minimum I'd happily take until the entire POS mechanic is overhauled.

EVE needs tangible goals for both sides to any equation. Killmails only go so far and can be had in empire. When suicide ganking in empire starts producing tangible results to people more than long term roaming campaigns in 0.0 there is a problem with empire building.



Team Minmatar
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 18:50:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546777 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Vitrael]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#249 Originally by: Kerdrak
Very easy solution to cynojammer/titans: make cynojammer to offline when a doomsday device hits it (online offline it, no need of destroying it).

Except that this solution leaves any and all attackers without a Titan totally at a loss.

I think all of the decent, objective views of the Cynojammer in this thread are in agreement: cyno jammers should not be allowed to simultaneously silence all capital movements indefinitely and sit in POSes that can easily ravage enormous battleship fleets.

There are all kinds of viable changes that could be made:

1. Decrease cynojammer HP to improve destructibility and make BS fleet attacks more viable.

2. Increase cynojammer fitting to lessen shredder POS defenses and make BS fleet attacks more viable.

3. Require constant fueling of cynojammers to restrict 23/7 operation.

4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours.

5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective.

6. Create anchorable, offensive cyno generators unaffected by cynojammers to facilitate the "siege" process.

7. Allow black ops covert cynos in cynojammed systems to permit for usefulness of the black ops hull and improved skirmish abilities in cynojammed, jumpbridged systems.

8. Limit cynojammers to a number of sovereign systems per constellation so that only key systems can be so utterly defended.

9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals.

10. Make cynojammers use CPU so reinforced towers do not continue to provide cynojamming.

Certainly not just one but a combination of these changes are in order.


]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 18:41:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546674 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by CCP Mitnal]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#248
The request to keep this non-CAOD was a reasonable one, any subsequent off-topic discussion surrounding the motives for change, the current state of the Southern War or anything "CAODified" will be met with warnings.

Mitnal,
Community Representative

EVE Online
CCP Games
Email/Netfang
Wrangler made me do it. Saint]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 18:09:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546505 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Mr Bananas]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#247
Imagine if you had to choose between a jump bridge, a cyno jammer, or other modules (+5% mining yield to all in system or something else fun). Sort of global effects for the whole system, but you could only pick one.
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 18:02:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546447 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Lord WarATron]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#246 Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/03/2008 17:38:11
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/03/2008 17:37:40
Originally by: Kerdrak
Very easy solution to cynojammer/titans: make cynojammer to offline when a doomsday device hits it (online offline it, no need of destroying it).


No point. The whole issue with cyno jammer is that it is a very effective anti-pos spam tool. Cynojammer + titans means that the attacker who just pos spam with no intention of a real fight and hoping to win on a technicality can no longer do so.

It forces both sides to commit to the fight and forces the attackers bring their caps in and keep them. The only people who are complaining are pos spammers or those that have little intention of using capitals vs capitals. The counter to Titan is called a Dreadnaught and they work pretty well.

I cannot understand how people can pos spam with "8 titans" in system 23/7, yet complain about the Jammer. Where was the 8 Titans when 10+ pos's get spammed?

Just think about it.
--

Billion Isk Mission
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 17:37:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546329 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Rod Blaine]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#245 Edited by: Rod Blaine on 10/03/2008 17:19:51
Let's explore this "unconqurable" system of yours dtee.

So there's 4 titans in a cynojammed system, with a bunch of carriers and MS to rep the jammer in between DD rounds (30 minute timeframe, as dual DD is the absolute minimum required) and at least a decent sized fleet to stop you from warping out all the time and to nuke your anti-carrier/ms spidertank tactics (say, 30 bs plus 20 assorted support and pos gunners).

That is the absolute minimum you'd require to stop a full-sized attack.


You require these 4 titans, 20ish caps and 50 other pilots there 23/7, outside as well as inside your main alliance timezone.

You would also require this in every cynojammed system you want to be defending.


So tell me, with 8 titans in total, how many systems can this fictuous alliance of yours defend at the same time exactly ?

You know, we know, goons know, that the only reason we can do this is because they fail to bring it without us seeing it coming a mile away, and without using the tactics required to reduce our defense advantage enough. It is in no way impossible to get your capfleet into a cynojammed system by taking down the jammer, even if the enemy has a bunch of titans.



[center]
Old blog]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 17:19:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7546197 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Kerdrak]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#244 ________________________________________
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 16:41:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7545898 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Kerfira]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#243 Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Guys, guys, clearly having multiple titans defending a cynojammed system isn't a realistic idea and hasn't actually occured within the past week on tranquility.

Ehem, is there a rule in EVE that you HAVE to attack the system that's defended by said titans? Why not attack somewhere else?

It is generally NOT sound military strategy to attack where your opponent is strong! You attack where he is weak!

So, you pick another target. Go in fast and heavy with your BS fleet and knock out the cyno jammer there, bring in your caps and start sieging and leave them in system. When the towers come out of reinforced, your cap fleet is already there and it doesn't matter if the jammer is back up. As an alternative, you can commit enough forces to control the system totally until the towers come out.

Basically its a matter of commitment, where it seems that the people complaining over cyno jammers are people who don't like to commit resources to a battle and maybe risk loosing ships Rolling Eyes

Or said another way, the people who go "Wha, wha! Our uber-blob can't win with the current rules! CCP, change the game!"
I find it pretty pathetic to be quite honest......

EVE would be a terribly boring game if it was just about gathering the biggest fleet....

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 15:57:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7545609 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Lord WarATron]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#242 Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/03/2008 15:49:40
The Cyno Jammer is doing its job perfectly. It clearly shows that if you want to attack a cynojammer system, you take the jammer out first and bring caps in before the defenders get a chance to organise their caps into position. If you have enough time to drop dozens of pos's, you have more than enough time to knock out a jammer. The NOL system attack proves this.

This works against the concept of mass pos spamming quite well, because if you dont attack the jammer first to get capitals in and just pos spam, then good luck trying to kill the defernders capitals. I mean, even a kid can understand this.

I thank CCP for making random POS spam tactics useless due to Cynojammers, which support organised defenders rather than pos spamming crews
--

Billion Isk Mission
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 15:48:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7545525 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Depp Knight]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=9#241 ]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 15:43:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7545524 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Wesley Baird]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#240

The attackers needs to wait for a time when the circumstances favour their attack more, and take advantage of their enemies lack of vigilance. They cannot defend that system 23/7, if they do with such firepower they deserve to keep it. It comes to resolve and planning...

If we have 30 MOM's on a shredder POS, I don't think we deserve to lose that POS or system...we have 30 MOM's on it!! Attack when we don't...same goes for titans etc...

Its hard, and it should be hard...

]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 14:48:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7545087 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Dianabolic]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#239 Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Guys, guys, clearly having multiple titans defending a cynojammed system isn't a realistic idea and hasn't actually occured within the past week on tranquility.



guys guys guys, I know, when there are multiple titans in system we should DEFINITELY attack THAT ONE SYSTEM!

Yes, because the lag of us dieing like lemmings will ultimately bring us victory, FOR SPARTA!

It obviously didn't occur to you that whilst we were benefiting from the advantages of being the defender (which, in history, is how it IS) and the benefit from our investment in warships, materiale and specialised skill training (which is just rewards for the hundreds of billions of isk it has taken to MAKE our space so hard to conquer), you have the vast benefit of so many numbers (and still do, despite various groups getting on a different train to a different destination) that you didn't think "hmmm, let's attack something else".

You lot have got no imagination. You started off well in your last offensive, yet when one piece fell apart (hi t-mofa) you completely lost the will, leadership and commitment to rally round and push forward with the rest of your offensive. Now, because you can't / won't adapt, you're whining to make the environment adapt to YOU.

It's nothing short of hilarious. Keep it up, I'd hope that the changes actually benefit YOU though, guys, as you keep whining for it - because you've got alooooot more space than we have to defend, and if ANY of those changes go through that have been suggested by greyscale it's going to open up far more of your space to attack, than it is of ours.

We'll adapt and make the best of it, as always, whilst you guys keep crying, like always.
Reikoku Diplomatic Forums
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 14:45:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7545086 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Bozse]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#238 Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Guys, guys, clearly having multiple titans defending a cynojammed system isn't a realistic idea and hasn't actually occured within the past week on tranquility.



Never said it wasn't a valid tactic to defend a system, no beeing able to adapt your tactics around said defense shows the lack of imagination.


Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 14:28:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544923 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by DT3]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#237 Edited by: DT3 on 10/03/2008 14:23:14
Edited by: DT3 on 10/03/2008 14:18:23
Originally by: Crohnx
so dtee u think that everything in eve should be conquered easily and that theres no more eve fortresess around?


Not at all. Conquerring ASCN space wasn't easy, I dont think conquering any space was easy before the introduction of Cyno jammers and Supercaps.For example the ASCN war, it wasn't easy for BOB it required excellent logistics, planning and brains. If ASCN had fought on the same level as BoB it would have been very difficult to remove them. For example 1 titan per system wasn't "easy" to conquer. Its just about reaching a balance between the two. Also this isn't a I want all BoB pos's offlined argument. this is more of a game balance for all argument.

At the end of the day this should be "fun" nothing should be too easy or too difficult.

Please ask LV if it was "easy" to conquer RA space without CYNO jammers.
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 14:16:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544922 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Waterfowl Democracy]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#236

]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 14:15:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544921 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Crohnx]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#235 ]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 14:09:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544920 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by DT3]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#234 Edited by: DT3 on 10/03/2008 13:58:46
Originally by: Bozse
Jammers and Titans:
Not a serious issue in reality as the number of titans isn't that high and even with bridges they can't be everywhere at the same time, the argued 4-8 titans defending a jammer just shows lack of emagination in strategies.


Please feel free to join in and enlighten us all with your imaginative ideas.

Like your colleagues have.
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:56:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544801 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Bozse]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#233 I fail to see the issue with this, if changed so that you have to take the jammer down to get your capitals in then the point of the jammer goes away as you open up for the hostile caps to jump in aswell.

Jammers and Titans:
Not a serious issue in reality as the number of titans isn't that high and even with bridges they can't be everywhere at the same time, the argued 4-8 titans defending a jammer just shows lack of emagination in strategies.

Dificulty to take the jammer down:
It shuld be hard to bring down otherwise it serves no purpouse, and it can be done as seen in both QY6 and NOL, failure to organise to take full advantage of that window where you can jump caps in shuldn't be blamed on the jammer.

On Greyscale's posted sugestions:
- Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems

Why not, doesn't change things when it comes to pos warfare.

- Increasing fitting requirements

It's fine imo, as i said earlier it shuld be tough to bring down.

- Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours)

Horrible idea, we have more then enough logistical elements in largescale pos warfare as is.

- Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system

Horrible idea again, see above why.

- An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik)

Not a bad idea perhaps, exploitable though as any one with a brain would anchor one of them for them self in there jammed system to be able to jump caps in hence avoid using bridges.


All in all though i think this is all a fairly pointless discussion as the problems with pos warfare isn't the jammer or the titans or the bridges, it's an overall design issue with the whole mechanics involving sov and pos warfare.

imo sov shuld be decided by a specific tower designed for it with a limit of 3 in each system, this prevents pos spam and forces an actual fight for the system, current pos's shuld be redesigned to new versions military and industrial to be more specific in there roles.

One of these day i might even sit down and put all ideas i have around pos mechanism together but the thumb is kinda stuck so who knows if it will happen =)


Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:51:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544800 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by DT3]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#232 Edited by: DT3 on 10/03/2008 13:45:54
Originally by: Sandy Brown
Comments


In all honesty, forget that goonfleet even brought this up. I was already "whining" about it when the siege of Tpar was meant to be happening. However I am hoping for something other then a knee jerk reaction instead a well thought out solution.(I wish I was intelligent enough to think of one. I am trying though) I agree, there needs to be care taken in how this situation is handled.

I do think that DEBATE on this matter is a good thing. It does highlight that something is not working as ti should and on the other side hwe ave the counter argument. This can only be healthy and help improve this game we all love to play.


]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:38:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544694 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by Sandy Brown]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#231 Originally by: DT3
Originally by: Sandy Brown

That's a pretty good point. Any consideration of changes to cyno jammers needs to take into account how cynojammers work in smaller wars. There is not yet a statistically significant sample of such situations. Having said that there are some changes discussed here which have been very good ideas.

Great care also needs to be taken because this argument is being influenced to an unknown extent by members of goonfleet whose ulterior motive is to have the game rebalanced in a manner that benefits them. As we learnt from their efforts to have titans nerfed, they will put a considerable effort into manipulating such debates.


I am not a member of Goonfleet and I also support the need for "fixing" Cyno jammers and titans combined. I am always reminded of the "hero" unit in other RTS games where you are limited to how many you mahy buildl, unfortunately I am not sure how this would be practically enforced in eve with the ability to have alts and so on.


Don't get me wrong, I have no problem in principle with changing cyno mechanics. It is just important to excercise caution because goonfleet is waging a concerted and coordinated publicity campaign to change these mechanics. Their motivation for this is their own self interest and not any benevolent interest in making the game fairer. defending ourselves.
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:37:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544624 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by DT3]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#230 Edited by: DT3 on 10/03/2008 13:37:07
Edited by: DT3 on 10/03/2008 13:36:46
Originally by: TWD
Originally by: DT3


You still didn't answer my question. Lets also make this interesting. You dont even have a support fleet. JUST 8 titans.

Its unbeatable.


If "only" 8 titans, nothing else, then the fleet can warp out if DD is activated and aligned/up to speed.

Jeez.

If "only" 8 titans, nothing else, if the gate is bubbled by mobile warpdisruptors, you jump in staggered.

Jeez.


Yes, That still doesn't account for you knowing that the jumm is staggered. That also creates a situation where 8 titan sit on grid with the cyno jammer. Its just silly to debate this because it wont go anywhere.

However I dont dispute that with just 8 titans you could GET in to system by some miracle if they dont doomsday you every few minutes when the Majority of the hostile fleet jumps in.\

I would like to thank you for entertaining my request.
]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:36:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544623 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by TWD]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#229 Edited by: TWD on 10/03/2008 13:37:11
Originally by: DT3


You still didn't answer my question. Lets also make this interesting. You dont even have a support fleet. JUST 8 titans.

Its unbeatable.


If "only" 8 titans, nothing else, then the fleet can warp out if DD is activated and aligned/up to speed.

Jeez.

If "only" 8 titans, nothing else, if the gate is bubbled by mobile warpdisruptors, you jump in staggered.

Jeez.

(btw, I know that when attacking the cyno jammer with ALOT of ships things lag out and the DD's might catch alot of people, but balancing around lag is kinda *shrug*)]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:33:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544622 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by TWD]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#228 Mon, 10 Mar 2009 13:30:00 +0000 eve-search/guid/7544621 <![CDATA[Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics - by DT3]]> http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=692485&page=8#227 Originally by: TWD
Originally by: DT3

TWD, I would also really like to hear any tactics you have on getting in to a system with 4 titans inside and let say for arguments sake 2 gates. We even have a titan to jump bridge us to the other gate. You have a spy on my Ts ( as always) and a titan on each gate sitting 250km off. 2 titans on stand by to warp to any titan that may get in trouble + Motherships to armor rep any titan in trouble. Lets also just say THAT system is your LAST sov system. There are no other viable targets.

How would you counter that? (This is actually a serious question)


If you have 1 system left and pla