Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
My boyfriend and I were discussing capital ships in combat and an idea occurred to me that had been sort of fermenting in my brain for a few weeks, and well, let me just provide an example hull, and explain it a bit:
Minmatar Tactical Guidance Ship "Mj+Ślnir" Hull: Hurricane High Slots: 6 Midslots: 6 Lowslots: 4
Able to fit cynojammer module Able to fit AEGIS Sensor Suite
Role: Increase battlefield awareness and cyno-defense for a fleet
New Modules:
Cynojammer module Highslot mod. Acts much like a HIC. Significantly slows down the ship, and it cannot warp while the module is active. Prevents ships from cynoing in, not from a cyno being lit. When a ship tries to jump in, the jump fails, and the Tactical ship gets an alert saying who was trying to jump in, generating as a list on their screen.
AEGIS Sensor Suite Midslot mod. Basically enhances the directional scanners. Increasing their range and also giving a reading range for things offgrid.
The Tactical Guidence ship would be a moderately armoured, lightly armed fleet support vessel. Its role would be to create an information and defence umbrella for fleets to operate out of, preventing easy hotdrops for midsized fleets and forcing engagements into subcapital realms.
Thoughts? |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Of course I like this, as we discussed it together But yes, this would definitely help smaller subcap gangs fight larger forces who traditionally rely solely on capships. It would also finally give a T2 role for tier-2 battlecruisers and act much like a HIC: unable to cloak, run, or really fight while in its tactical cynojamming mode. This would keep the ship from being OP in actual combat (much as a HIC does the DPS of a wet noodle).
|
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
208
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Question, What is the range of the Cynojamming module? What is the duration? What happens to ships which are in the process of jumping, do they arrive at a random location like they do if the cyno ship is destroyed?
I like your idea in general, it is simple and elegant, but need some more specific information before I can positively +1 |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1682
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:My boyfriend and I were discussing capital ships in combat and an idea occurred to me that had been sort of fermenting in my brain for a few weeks, and well, let me just provide an example hull, and explain it a bit:
Minmatar Tactical Guidance Ship "Mj+Ślnir" Hull: Hurricane High Slots: 6 Midslots: 6 Lowslots: 4
Able to fit cynojammer module Able to fit AEGIS Sensor Suite
Role: Increase battlefield awareness and cyno-defense for a fleet
New Modules:
Cynojammer module Highslot mod. Acts much like a HIC. Significantly slows down the ship, and it cannot warp while the module is active. Prevents ships from cynoing in, not from a cyno being lit. When a ship tries to jump in, the jump fails, and the Tactical ship gets an alert saying who was trying to jump in, generating as a list on their screen.
AEGIS Sensor Suite Midslot mod. Basically enhances the directional scanners. Increasing their range and also giving a reading range for things offgrid.
The Tactical Guidence ship would be a moderately armoured, lightly armed fleet support vessel. Its role would be to create an information and defence umbrella for fleets to operate out of, preventing easy hotdrops for midsized fleets and forcing engagements into subcapital realms.
Thoughts?
So can I get a module I can activate on my rookieship that will prevent stargates from firing from the other side and in so doing prevent players from jumping between systems too? |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:
So can I get a module I can activate on my rookieship that will prevent stargates from firing from the other side and in so doing prevent players from jumping between systems too?
no.
Quote: Question, What is the range of the Cynojamming module?
Systemwide
Quote: What is the duration?
Would have to be determined in balance testing. It could be as long as an hour and use fuel or something, or as short as 2 minutes and suck cap. But balancing that our would require playtesting.
Quote: What happens to ships which are in the process of jumping, do they arrive at a random location like they do if the cyno ship is destroyed?
It would simply abort the jump. If a cynoship is destroyed, from what I understand, it outright halts the jump of the capital.
This is a very basic pitch idea, a lot of balance testing would have to go into it. I wanted to leave the specifics vague instead of trying to figure it all out myself, since I'm not a developer (yet ) |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
208
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:41:00 -
[6] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:
So can I get a module I can activate on my rookieship that will prevent stargates from firing from the other side and in so doing prevent players from jumping between systems too?
no. Quote: Question, What is the range of the Cynojamming module?
Systemwide Quote: What is the duration?
Would have to be determined in balance testing. It could be as long as an hour and use fuel or something, or as short as 2 minutes and suck cap. But balancing that our would require playtesting. Quote: What happens to ships which are in the process of jumping, do they arrive at a random location like they do if the cyno ship is destroyed?
It would simply abort the jump. If a cynoship is destroyed, from what I understand, it outright halts the jump of the capital. This is a very basic pitch idea, a lot of balance testing would have to go into it. I wanted to leave the specifics vague instead of trying to figure it all out myself, since I'm not a developer (yet )
When a Cyno ship is destroyed while a ship is in process of jumping, they land in some random location in the target system.
As for your range, GTFO!
That is WAY too OP, you want a single ship that can cyno jam a whole system with a toggle able module.
I could be willing to see like a 100km range or less, but system wide is redonculous. |
Danel Tosh
EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
I think a range of 100k or at most grid wide would be enough for this ship, system wide is too over powered.
|
kerradeph
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Danel Tosh wrote:I think a range of 100k or at most grid wide would be enough for this ship, system wide is too over powered.
yeah, systemwide is insane. and it could act somewhat like the cynojammer sov mod, where it just turns off cynos in the effected area. also, I think it should be heavily tanked since it's holding back the reinforcements, it's likely to be called primary constantly. not anything like the proteous, but something like 150-200k EHP would be reasonable since it's also a pretty big target. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
I agree, grid wide range is best because otherwise you'd just have large alliances use 10 of these things to perma lock down a system; or what if it's sitting in a POS; thats worse than a regular cyno jammer because it cant be killed. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
air enough, systemwide might be too much. How much trouble do we think it would be though, for an alliance to land ships somewhere else in system and just warp on top of a gang. It still won't stop titan bridge dickslapping. The goal is to make it useful for small gangs, but in a way that it scales poorly for permajamming a system. Perhaps the energy cost to operate it could slowly build overtime.
On the other hand, how about this then:
Stops cynos from being lit on grid, and if a cyno is lit in system, the ship gets a notification that X has lit a cyno, and also receives a notification for each ship that jumps in via cyno or gate, allowing this ship to be used as a forward warning system for ships entering the system, but wouldn't be useful in nullsec in this purpose unless you dedicated a ship to sitting somewhere running the AEGIS mod all the time, and since it can't be cloaked and can't warp while this module is active, it becomes an easy target. Perhaps the AEGIS mod could also make it easier to scan down (sig bloom?) when its running.
As for tank, I don't actually think these ships should have HIC level tanks. In fact, I think they should be fairly weak, perhaps around the level of a combat recon. Let it fit the spectrum target breaker thing CCP released in Inferno so it can keep locks off itself. |
|
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tbh i was thinking about similar thing.
Tho my idea was to make a Warp Disruption Field Generator script.
It would be seen same as a cyno beacon on overview and blocking remote reps coming to jamming ship.
Liquid Ozone would be consumed.
And it's not OP to block whole system cos if u really want to drop caps while you are in blob you are able to kill HIC very fast with large numbers since he has zero speed and has beacon next to him.
|
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:air enough, systemwide might be too much. How much trouble do we think it would be though, for an alliance to land ships somewhere else in system and just warp on top of a gang. It still won't stop titan bridge dickslapping. The goal is to make it useful for small gangs, but in a way that it scales poorly for permajamming a system. Perhaps the energy cost to operate it could slowly build overtime.
On the other hand, how about this then:
Stops cynos from being lit on grid, and if a cyno is lit in system, the ship gets a notification that X has lit a cyno, and also receives a notification for each ship that jumps in via cyno or gate, allowing this ship to be used as a forward warning system for ships entering the system, but wouldn't be useful in nullsec in this purpose unless you dedicated a ship to sitting somewhere running the AEGIS mod all the time, and since it can't be cloaked and can't warp while this module is active, it becomes an easy target. Perhaps the AEGIS mod could also make it easier to scan down (sig bloom?) when its running.
As for tank, I don't actually think these ships should have HIC level tanks. In fact, I think they should be fairly weak, perhaps around the level of a combat recon. Let it fit the spectrum target breaker thing CCP released in Inferno so it can keep locks off itself.
I can agree more with this.
As for the danger of caps coming in in other places in the system, that is fine too. It gives you time to GTFO, which means the caps are risking far more jumping in if they may not be getting a fight. It also means that HOTDROPS are effectively nullified as long as you have one of these ships which seems to be the intent, without completely preventing someone from using capitals to fight back.
In larget fleets, multiple of these ships could be used, and each time a new cyno pops up, it could warp to it and light the module which would act to disperse and disorient the incoming capital fleet.
As for the AEGIS thing, (though I think the name is kinda off for your idea since AEGIS is "the Shield of Zues" and not an information system...) I am not sure about this thing...or how it should work... |
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
354
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 01:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't think that the AEGIS module is a good idea, simply because I think the entire system for intel gathering and detection in Eve needs a proper overhaul instead of adding modules to the game that rely on the random box of tricks we've aquired over the last 8 years.
- You can't see things outside of your own grid.
- Dscan is a joke and limited to an arbitrary ~14AU, tells you what's in a certain direction but not if it's active or moored at a POS, or if it is active who's flying it, or even how far away it is.
- Then the local channel gives you the omniptotence of knowing who is in system and how many there are, but not what they're flying
Nobody would ever sit down and design that as the basis of detection in a multiplayer spaceship game. The only detection system that has had any thought put in to it is the revamped probing system which is great in my opinion, everything else needs a revamp too. Try going a day on these forums without someone asking CCP to remove local or change it somehow.
So I'm against the AEGIS simply because there's no point in trying to build on quicksand.
Also a system-wide cyno-jammer is already a POS module and its use is heavily restricted, requiring maximum sov level and an IHUB upgrade. A ship should be a tactical weapon, so while I'd possibly support the concept of a grid-wide mobile or deployable cynojammer, I don't support a system-wide one.
Also such a cynojammer should also prevent ships trying to jump out like current AoE warp interdictors, and it should prevent the lighting of the cyno like the current cynojammer does. Having it just prevent jumping and not cynos is a bit vindictive to the poor defenseless cynoship pilot.
I don't think there needs to be another T2 BC just to carry these modules either,. A sensor suite upgrade would be fine on an existing command ship, and a cynojammer would be fine on an existing HIC. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 01:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jafit:
I rather agree that the current intelligence gathering system is borked, This thread proposes what I feel is a really good way to overhaul the sensors ingame. The AEGIS module would really be a stopgap to improve intel a bit until across the board changes could be made, which are likely at least a few years down the road unfortunately. |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard
299
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 04:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Supported for 250km range or less, system wide is overpowered. I would recommend 30s cycle time, like the HIC point. Also suggest making it have very high resistances and stiff armor/shields like CS's. As a balanced ship, I see it as a brick tank with little capability beyond jamming cyno's on grid. The Troll is trolling. |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 04:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
If the cynojamming module could only prevent on-grid cynos, then it really would be more of a defensive ship used to keep your fleet from getting hotdropped. Since its usefulness would only be on-grid rather than system-wide, though, it SHOULD get a lot of eHP. Think about it: after invention and the industrial processes and the like, we're talking about a hull that will cost nearly half a billion ISK. Do you really want that to get instapopped by an arty Tornado? With only on-grid cynojamming it's hardly useful, in my mind. There's no sense in making it pretty much useless, expensive, AND fragile. The pricetag alone invalides any comparisons to a rookie ship deactivating a stargate or any such nonsense.
I personally liked the original idea best. A HIC-like BC that cynojammed the entire system. I do understand the concerns raised here, and the following changes could balance them.
- The cynojamming module would be unable to be used while in or in-grid with a POS
- The cynojamming module wouldn't be able to be used while cloaked
- The cynojamming module would consume cap booster charges much like an ASB, and consume large enough charges that the ship couldn't possibly cynojam longer than ten minutes.
- The ship's signature radius blooms incredibly while the module is active, meaning that even if it's safespotted even a very low SP prober could probe it out.
It would force the enemy to send in their sub-caps to take out the cynojam ship, which would allow the defending/guerrila force to pick off some of the enemy forces before the giant capship battle ensued (when the ship ran out of charges). Another possbile use for this ship would be to defend friendly capships from getting hot-dropped: enemy caps can't cyno in but yours can cyno out. Thoughts? |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1682
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 07:59:00 -
[17] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:[quote=Asuka Solo]
So can I get a module I can activate on my rookieship that will prevent stargates from firing from the other side and in so doing prevent players from jumping between systems too?
no. [quote]
On that note, I'm going to -1 this idea.
OP wreaks of anti-capital sentiment in an extremely 1 sided mechanic that entrenches rifters-online even more. |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:27:00 -
[18] - Quote
Are you kidding me? "Rifters Online"? Have you looked at a major nullsec battle report? I hardly see a bunch of frigates. What you will see is a bunch of capships and quite a lot of battleships.
We "wreak" reek of anti-cap sentiment because yes, it is one-sided. In favor of caps. Nullsec warfare has become a matter of "who has the most caps?" rather than who can deploy a well-balanced, organized fleet of competent people. |
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
354
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:56:00 -
[19] - Quote
Shiroh Yatamii wrote:It would force the enemy to send in their sub-caps to take out the cynojam ship, which would allow the defending/guerrila force to pick off some of the enemy forces before the giant capship battle ensued (when the ship ran out of charges). Another possbile use for this ship would be to defend friendly capships from getting hot-dropped: enemy caps can't cyno in but yours can cyno out. Thoughts?
Dreadnoughts do face the problem that if they siege in order to kill a POS, they have to have a critical mass of ships so that they can kill the tower in the space of two siege cycles (20 mins) or they're probably going to get dropped on by supers. This makes shooting structures and participating in sov warfare very hard for smaller entities.
It'd be nice to have something to provide some protection against that, an on-grid cynojammer would prevent them coming in right on top of your dreds, it wouldn't stop them coming in somewhere else and warping to your dreds, but the dreads will still be in siege so they can't leave as soon as local spikes.
I think it's too easy to have a system-wide jammer, but a grid-wide jammer might create some interesting scenarios and have some practical uses.
Plus this thing has to work in lowsec too because there are POSes and dreads that operate there which get hotdropped by supers, but caps use lowsec for midpoints and we don't want to let assholes cynojam a bunch of midpoints just because they can. |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:05:00 -
[20] - Quote
I see the points about system-wide jammers being able to cut off huge chunks of space, but I feel as though it would be completely useless if it were simply an on-grid module. As you said, friendly dreads would still be in siege and wouldn't have time to get the hell out if the enemy simply it a cyno off-grid and warped to the fleet. Nevermind that "off-grid" can be anywhere between 200 to 600 kilometers away, which is a tiny distance to warp even for caps.
I definitely think this idea has some merit, but it would require some serious balancing. System-wide would be too OP (though I do think limiting the time to 5-10 minutes would make it more reasonable), but I just can't see on-grid only being worth half a billion ISK for what will likely be a single use. |
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1682
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Shiroh Yatamii wrote:Are you kidding me? "Rifters Online"? Have you looked at a major nullsec battle report? I hardly see a bunch of frigates. What you will see is a bunch of capships and quite a lot of battleships.
We "wreak" reek of anti-cap sentiment because yes, it is one-sided. In favor of caps. Nullsec warfare has become a matter of "who has the most caps?" rather than who can deploy a well-balanced, organized fleet of competent people.
Post with your main... otherwise I'm just going to continue thinking of you as just another few months old rifter hobo wannabe alt with no isk and a chip on his shoulder... hoping to grind an axe because he can't play with the big boys.
And if that is your main.... then I'm gonna start laughing because you are not qualified to moan about caps at all.....
Capitals today are nigh useless against sub capitals (bcs and down) thanks largely to XL turret tracking nerfs, the sheer lack of hull options and bonuses for Dreads and carriers and lets not forget.... the poor defenseless hobos in their frigates who demand not to get popped by fighter drones for attacking a ship 100 times their size, cost, mass and threat level... and then you still moan about them. because people can field them in numbers.
Those damn annoying 2 year olds that you always see and hear throwing tantrums in malls because mommy doesn't want to buy them what they want.... That's you crying about ships your not flying.
Isn't it bad enough you only get a choice between 1 dread hull and 1 carrier hull per faction? Forcing you to blob more of them to garner any real benefit in a giant fleet... like the ones you supposedly fly in...... and isn't it surprising... that they blob them... if Eve only had Drakes.... then you'll know exactly what I'm on about. The sheer lack of choice and roles for capitals has forced the evolution of capital ship warfare in eve to become a numbers game. Surprise surprise... that's what your crying over.
Then a gem like the OP comes along and proposes yet another nerf-o-matic win button for sub capitals that will prevent, alongside the already pre-existing anti-cyno mechanics and tactics in the game, capital ships from moving around at all, in addition to not being able to dish out damage on your hulls directly.
And every anti-capital capsuleer hops on the band wagon. Sad.
If this OP were truly unbiased... we wouldnt just see modules preventing capital jump drives from working with dark Voodoo magic faggotry.... we would also see modules preventing the small ships from using stargates.
Travel imbargos all round or no travel imbargos at all.
Which brings us back to the sheer one sidedness of this proposal and its fascist supporters.
Dont get me wrong. I'm all for Capital jump drive interdiction. But this manifestation is fail as it gives more power to sub capitals... yet again.
If this ship hull was a t2 dread or a t2 carrier... I would fully endorse it and ****;... I'd even support a grid wide range for this anti-jumpdrive madness.
Alas. |
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
291
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 19:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: Post with your main... otherwise I'm just going to continue thinking of you as just another few months old rifter hobo wannabe alt with no isk and a chip on his shoulder... hoping to grind an axe because he can't play with the big boys.
And if that is your main.... then I'm gonna start laughing because you are not qualified to moan about caps at all.....
Fine, posting on main. You're ******* stupid if you think all characters above a certain SP limit MUST fly capships. Some of us prefer smaller ships. That doesn't mean we're not "playing with the big boys". Or did you forget how your precious capital ship needs BC support at times?
Asuka Solo wrote: Capitals today are nigh useless against sub capitals (bcs and down) thanks largely to XL turret tracking nerfs, the sheer lack of hull options and bonuses for Dreads and carriers and lets not forget.... the poor defenseless hobos in their frigates who demand not to get popped by fighter drones for attacking a ship 100 times their size, cost, mass and threat level... and then you still moan about them. because people can field them in numbers.
"Poor defenseless hobos"? I do not expect or even want frigates to be able to tank fighters. That's not what the post is about. Either learn how to read or shut up. This post is a proposal (not a demand) for a new T2 BC that would cynojam either a small area or for a very small amount of time. Or both.
Asuka Solo wrote:
Those damn annoying 2 year olds that you always see and hear throwing tantrums in malls because mommy doesn't want to buy them what they want.... That's you crying about ships your not flying.
Stop acting so indignant over theorycrafting and treat others with some degree of respect if you want to be taken seriously. It would appear to be you who is throwing the tantrum, not anyone else.
Asuka Solo wrote: Isn't it bad enough you only get a choice between 1 dread hull and 1 carrier hull per faction? Forcing you to blob more of them to garner any real benefit in a giant fleet... like the ones you supposedly fly in...... and isn't it surprising... that they blob them... if Eve only had Drakes.... then you'll know exactly what I'm on about. The sheer lack of choice and roles for capitals has forced the evolution of capital ship warfare in eve to become a numbers game. Surprise surprise... that's what your crying over.
This proposal would mitigate the numbers game for an incredibly short period of time (five to ten minutes, as I've very repeatedly stated and you've ignored) or over a small area (on-grid). Or both. This would actually add more flexibility in for capships, allowing them to engage in scenarios where they would otherwise fear retaliation from enemy caps, because the cynojam ship would delay such a retaliation.
Asuka Solo wrote: Then a gem like the OP comes along and proposes yet another nerf-o-matic win button for sub capitals that will prevent, alongside the already pre-existing anti-cyno mechanics and tactics in the game, capital ships from moving around at all, in addition to not being able to dish out damage on your hulls directly.
If you're so impatient you can't wait five minutes or are inconvenienced by having to warp after jumping in, I question why you're in such a strategic asset as a capship rather than a "hobo frigate".
|
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
291
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: And every anti-capital capsuleer hops on the band wagon. Sad.
If this OP were truly unbiased... we wouldnt just see modules preventing capital jump drives from working with dark Voodoo magic faggotry.... we would also see modules preventing the small ships from using stargates.
Travel imbargos all round or no travel imbargos at all.
Which brings us back to the sheer one sidedness of this proposal and its fascist supporters.
I'm basically going to ignore this sand-in-cheeks amount of rage. I am glad you've known me for a number of years and have determined both my sexual orientation and political views. GG, GG.
Asuka Solo wrote: Dont get me wrong. I'm all for Capital jump drive interdiction. But this manifestation is fail as it gives more power to sub capitals... yet again.
If this ship hull was a t2 dread or a t2 carrier... I would fully endorse it and ****;... I'd even support a grid wide range for this anti-jumpdrive madness.
Alas.
I'm actually not too opposed to this alternative. It would finally give us T2 versions of capship hulls, and a T2 capship preventing other capships from jumping in makes sense.
|
Jon Marburg
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 21:57:00 -
[24] - Quote
I like this idea, but it definitely needs more testing and discussion before we come anywhere close to seeing it in game.
System-wide has the potential to be overpowered, as well as being a grief mechanic. I agree with a previous poster that grid-wide cyno interdiction would be a much better option. It should have similar "bubble" mechanics to HICs, i.e. no RR while interdiction is active and a decent tank to help last through a cycle.
Some additional features may improve its balancing:
- Lock ship in place and create a beacon in space for the duration of the cycle
- The cycle time should be extremely limited (~1 minute) and should only have the capacity to carry 5 minutes worth of fuel
- It doesn't prevent jumping to already active cynos, but prevents cynos from being activated in its vicinity
- Maybe add a skill that dictates cyno interdiction range (1-5 AU)
|
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:47:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jon Marburg wrote:I Some additional features may improve its balancing:
- Lock ship in place and create a beacon in space for the duration of the cycle
- The cycle time should be extremely limited (~1 minute) and should only have the capacity to carry 5 minutes worth of fuel
- It doesn't prevent jumping to already active cynos, but prevents cynos from being activated in its vicinity
- Maybe add a skill that dictates cyno interdiction range (1-5 AU)
From these ideas it really does sound like this ship would work best as a T2 capship that cynojams enemy cap reinforcements in huge battles. A BC would simply melt if it were locked into place in a large battle, without RR to boot. In either case, I do think it should prevent jumping to already-lit cynos. Overall I like your points.
|
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
I feel I should also comment on the proposed AEGIS module. I don't think that'd quite work, as the entire system by which we gain intel really needs an overhaul, rather than a band-aid. Additionally, there's no practical way to increase the dscanner's range: the ~14 AU max distance is in fact NOT arbitrary. 2,147,483,647 is the largest signed 32-bit integer value possible before it "wraps around" to -2,147,483,647. Thus if they wanted to increase the dscanner range they'd have to change the data type used when you click "Scan" from int to double. Since they'd have to go back and change the related functions for the dscanner to refer to double rather than int, it could very well end up being a pretty big overhaul for the coders. Of course, I merely speculate that the dscanner measures distance in kilometers using signed 32-bit integers, but that does seem to be the case.
So no. No dscanner buff for the foreseeable future. If they change it, it will be an overhaul entirely. |
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
354
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 23:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Shiroh Yatamii wrote:Are you kidding me? "Rifters Online"? Have you looked at a major nullsec battle report? I hardly see a bunch of frigates. What you will see is a bunch of capships and quite a lot of battleships.
We "wreak" reek of anti-cap sentiment because yes, it is one-sided. In favor of caps. Nullsec warfare has become a matter of "who has the most caps?" rather than who can deploy a well-balanced, organized fleet of competent people. Post with your main... otherwise I'm just going to continue thinking of you as just another few months old rifter hobo wannabe alt with no isk and a chip on his shoulder... hoping to grind an axe because he can't play with the big boys. And if that is your main.... then I'm gonna start laughing because you are not qualified to moan about caps at all..... Capitals today are nigh useless against sub capitals (bcs and down) thanks largely to XL turret tracking nerfs, the sheer lack of hull options and bonuses for Dreads and carriers and lets not forget.... the poor defenseless hobos in their frigates who demand not to get popped by fighter drones for attacking a ship 100 times their size, cost, mass and threat level... and then you still moan about them. because people can field them in numbers. Those damn annoying 2 year olds that you always see and hear throwing tantrums in malls because mommy doesn't want to buy them what they want.... That's you crying about ships your not flying. Isn't it bad enough you only get a choice between 1 dread hull and 1 carrier hull per faction? Forcing you to blob more of them to garner any real benefit in a giant fleet... like the ones you supposedly fly in...... and isn't it surprising... that they blob them... if Eve only had Drakes.... then you'll know exactly what I'm on about. The sheer lack of choice and roles for capitals has forced the evolution of capital ship warfare in eve to become a numbers game. Surprise surprise... that's what your crying over. Then a gem like the OP comes along and proposes yet another nerf-o-matic win button for sub capitals that will prevent, alongside the already pre-existing anti-cyno mechanics and tactics in the game, capital ships from moving around at all, in addition to not being able to dish out damage on your hulls directly. And every anti-capital capsuleer hops on the band wagon. Sad. If this OP were truly unbiased... we wouldnt just see modules preventing capital jump drives from working with dark Voodoo magic faggotry.... we would also see modules preventing the small ships from using stargates. Travel imbargos all round or no travel imbargos at all. Which brings us back to the sheer one sidedness of this proposal and its fascist supporters. Dont get me wrong. I'm all for Capital jump drive interdiction. But this manifestation is fail as it gives more power to sub capitals... yet again. If this ship hull was a t2 dread or a t2 carrier... I would fully endorse it and ****;... I'd even support a grid wide range for this anti-jumpdrive madness. Alas.
tl;dr: I can't kill frigates while using my fighters or XL turrets Therefore cynojammers are a bad idea. And I'm mad
Also... ... elipses... ... and... 'imbargos' isn't a... word |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |