| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Stimulus
    |
Posted - 2008.01.28 22:29:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Pezzle
Let me start by saying Black Ops probably need a rework. Do not change the game so Black Ops have a role, change Black Ops. Allowing the Covert Cyno in jammed systems is a mistake. A defender dedicated to patrol or control of certain choke points should have *some* chance at catching an enemy. If the Covert Cyno goes this route there will be almost nothing to stop an attacker from positioning a few Blackops to drop their fleet all over defended space with impunity. A defending gang arrives at point A? Cyno to attack point B or C. Now add the possibility of jump bridges not working in damped systems. At that stage the defender is penalized (again).
Says yet another guy who uses 30+ man gangs to run down 10 man gangs by using Jump Bridges in cyno jammed systems.
Says yet another guy who hasn't provided a counter argument for balancing the equipment based on the risk, reward and oportunity cost of the current mechanics. Why should I be penalized because I chose to train for jump bridges, black ops and cynoral generation 5 because you feel you have some right to move around your space like jack rabbits spitting on anything.
Why should my game mechanic be totally changed to accomodate YOUR laziness. Why should YOU get more out of EVE because I refuse to put up my own POS because there are very few options to actually take space now other than Blobbing.
Why should I listen to anything you have to say if all you have to say reads : "I don't care about the way you play the game. Despite any logic or proof about Defenders having the short end of the stick I will claim to be the martyr. I spend x amount of days doing industry hauling for my POS and despite PURE PVP ORGANIZATIONS HAVING TO COME UP WITH THE ISK TO INVEST IN ASSAULTING OTHER PEOPLES SPACE WITH EVERY MECHANIC AGAINST THEM I will demand that no effort be taken to balance out of my favor."
You know what I do to make money to fight in 0.0? I have to NPC in someones space off their timezones, do research jobs with multiple agents, run lvl 4 missions and build up my industrial power. How is that any different of a timesink for me outside of PVP than yours just to fuel your god damned towers?
I ask you Pezzle, come up with a post that doesn't revolve around the game mechanics swinging to your every favor. If you are scared about 50 to 100 Stealth Bombers cyno'ing into your POS systems then maybe you shouldn't have them in the first place. What is 50 stealth bomber's worth... 50 men for 35 raven's worth of DPS? What the hell dude. Why are you scared about that? Because YOU can't predict when that happens? I can't predict when you are going to put up another cyno jammed POS. See how this works?
Team Minmatar
|
Gelo Breen
Caldari
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 22:32:00 -
[92]
Easy solutions to this in my mind.
Either allow cyno jammers to be put on any POS in system. Hence making it a full sub capital battle in the system.
If they get a POS up, they can put a cyno up.
OR
Increase cyno jammer requirments to Sov4.
personally I always thought that the size of the POS a alliance/corp can place should be based on the system sov. Needing sov4 or 5 to place large POS's.
sov 3 mediums
anyone can place smalls.
|
Scavok
UA Industry
Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 22:35:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
whine post....
In general a collossal mess of illogical arguments, so II'll just point out a couple....
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
And what you want to do with t1 (or named fitting) battleship? Pee on jammer? There is a reason ppl use t2 sniperfits nowadays if they can.
You are completely NOT knowing how this issue works. A T1 fitted and tanked BS with good named T1 weapons is well sufficient for this.
T1 weapons (maybe plus faction ammo) is about 90% as good as T2 for taking down POS defences.
T1 fittings are fine for unmanned POS. At a POS with gunners, a BS with t1 hardeners that only has 5 or 6 low slots has a very small chance of surviving.
Quote:
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Losing 50 BS means you will NOT kill jammer. Happy?
If you field 100, loose 50 during the process, you'll still take it down.
That is unless you fall into the 'inept' category......
You can of.c. also have been preparing for the attack a little bit, have a scout in system for when the cyno jammer is down for arriving hostile caps, and then bring in a number of your own carriers then, and log them off in system until you need them. Normally jump bridges are not used for bringing in caps except when camped.
But, 'oh noes', that'd require you to actually PREPARE, and 'oh horror' WORK for getting into the system. Those carriers could keep the majority of your fleet alive.
...but it's much easier to run to the forums....
I think every major alliance, at least in the south, has learned their lesson on offlining a jammer in a front line system. That is, there's NEVER any reason good enough to do it when you have jump bridges.
Quote:
You could of.c. also bring in a goodly amount of logistics ships, maybe have a cache of them in an adjoining system, but of.c. that'd ALSO require you to do that oh so dreaded 'PREPARE' stuff.
...but it's much easier to run to the forums....
Logistics ships are worthless at a manned POS. Web+medium guns=instapop.
Quote:
All yours, and most of the rest of the anti- peoples posts are SO common mainly in the fact that NONE of you like anything that remotely presents a challenge or risk in the game.
I personally like my challenge to be presented by other players that you can shoot back at. Maybe I'm in the minority vOv
|
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 22:44:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Pezzle on 28/01/2008 22:46:19
This is not about ego or agenda. I would say that while my post may have some bias, it contains less than some in this thread. Certainly there is less hostility ;)
The facts remain. Large groups preying on the smaller is one reason these modules exist in the first place. Smaller groups attacking larger groups is indeed an issue, but not one that can favorably be resolved by most of the propositions in this thread. If you make it 'easy' for a small group it becomes a cakewalk for a large one and nothing is solved. It is about the numbers. I am not particularly pleased with the current systems but I CAN see the harm in changing functions of this magnitude in order to cater to a certain playstyle.
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 23:12:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Pezzle
The facts remain. Large groups preying on the smaller is one reason these modules exist in the first place. Smaller groups attacking larger groups is indeed an issue, but not one that can favorably be resolved by most of the propositions in this thread. If you make it 'easy' for a small group it becomes a cakewalk for a large one and nothing is solved. It is about the numbers. I am not particularly pleased with the current systems but I CAN see the harm in changing functions of this magnitude in order to cater to a certain playstyle.
What is the harm in the cyno jammer preventing friendly jump bridging as well?
|
Karn Mithralia
Minmatar
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 00:09:00 -
[96]
I think perhaps the thrust of the original post is being lost here in debate between people with a little too much invested interest :)
CCP's stated aim was to allow smaller gangs to have some role in POS warfare. Cosmopolite has done a fair job of demonstrating that on the whole this isn't happening and POS warfare is still nearly 100% about blob war.
Why?
Because its hard to do anything meaningful with smaller gangs no matter how cunningly you apply them. I have had much fun with small POS harassment gangs but when the defender can just rep stuff up at their leisure (or with backing of a blob) it all gets a little pointless after a while.
The second point being made is one of balance. No sane person would argue defenders shouldn't have the advantage of their entrenched position but as it stands it appears a little over-done. When a region has virtually every system cyno jammed you have to wonder why we all own cap ships and bothered to train for black ops. Someones home system/s should be hard to take, thats what constellation sov is about. But its not that hard to gain sov 3 (only time is required) throughout an entire region and once thats done we can put our 0.0 toys away.
Another point I'd like to make - sure bashing the jammer isn't so hard and the losses suffered are acceptable when the goal is kept in mind, but when its very rapidly repped back to health again soon after it becomes somewhat less useful (and appealing). Breaking sov with more POS stops this but then we're left with the POS spam wars of old.
I think CCP have improved things and there is certainly more fun to be had now with POS than there was before the POS mechanic changes, but I also think things can be improved further so that there's even more fun to be had.
After all isn't that the aim of the game?
-----------------------------------------
 |
Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 00:40:00 -
[97]
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
First, Hardin, I am not interested in letting you bait me into a round of insults and counter-insults.
That wasn't my intent but in hindsight I can see how it read like that. So for that I apologise!
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Second, please stop putting words into my mouth.
I am not putting words into your mouth. My post above (page 3), but primarily the one back on page 2, explains exactly why I don't think there is anything CRITICALLY wrong with the current cyno mechanics and I am not going to repeat all those points all over again.
You say that you want to give every 'playstyle' some 'choices and achievement' in the field of POS warfare, yet surely those playstyle choices were yours to make in the first place? I for one am not a particular fan of nano warfare which I think is ruining PvP in the game - that's just a personal playstyle choice - yet do you see me posting thread calling for CCP to take action to give all the non-nano users some 'choices for achievement' vs nano gangs? Hell lets just ban them all  . Of course that's a whole separate discussion  - just to illustrate my playstyle point.
As it stands there are already some 'choices for achievement' in the field of Sov warfare for those unwilling to get involved in large scale POS warfare. Take for example the option to shoot station services.
Now I can understand that shooting station services may not satisfy you and would want more 'choices for achievement' than already exist - however the problem lies in the fact that major changes to cynojammers will not simply create 'choices for achievement' for smaller/casual alliances/roaming gangs who have abandoned the whole POS war thing, they will instead tear great gaping holes in the current system which the large super cap blob alliances will exploit to the extreme. As it stands you cannot have 'small' POS warfare and that's not CCP's fault its simply their logical response to human nature and the way we play the game.
I am not closed minded to options that do give attackers who are unwilling to commit to a full scale POS war some additional 'satisfaction' but if CCP do go down this route they have to ensure that whatever they institute reflects the whole risk vs reward ethos of the game. 0.0 is not some picnic as suggested by some and CCP need to ensure that whatever changes they institute don't simply encourage even more people to live in Empire than they do now.
In summary the system as it stands works. Cynojammers and systems do fall to committed attackers. They are not impregnable. You only have to look at the galactic map for the evidence.
Yes if you have a more 'casual' approach to the game or simply lack numbers taking a cyno jammed system is damned hard - but so it should be.
So in summary yes CCP could look at giving more casual/smaller groups more 'choices for achievement' and opportunities to impact on 0.0 warfare but I certainly don't think that major changes in cyno mechanics are needed to achieve that.
Finally to the various people who have attacked CVA in this thread yes we have an interest, as has the op - which he stated at the start. Having an interest does not mean we cannot contribute. Star Fraction has an agenda as they have admitted and so do we. In fact looking at the names and alliances of most of those who have already posted I would say that pretty much everyone in this thread has some kind of agenda. No one is whiter than white, so put the stones down or a lot of glass will end up getting smashed.
------------------------------
 |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 01:29:00 -
[98]
I completely agree that the risk vs reward ethos of the game needs to be factored into CCP's thinking when they consider the cynosural jammer and rebalancing around it and the synergies of it with other defense elements.
In fact, I urge CCP to look very closely indeed at the risk vs reward elements of both attacking and defending in 0.0 POS warfare.
One thing is very clear: anyone involved in serious 0.0 warfare risks a great deal, whether they are the attacker or the defender.
So I would welcome CCP looking at this in terms of risk vs reward on the basis that they examine it in terms of judging whether the risks for all concerned are too high or too low, and if the rewards for all concerned are too high or too low.
A dev has been kind enough to state that these issues are being looked at. It has been indicated that the issue of covert cynos being jammed is be considered for change such that this no longer happens. That is to be welcomed and thus far no-one has put forward a cogent argument as to why a structure designed to suppress enemy capitals should also suppress small, sub-capital black ops groups. It's my hope that CCP will make this change as it is, in my view, necessary if the Black Ops class is to have its potential in 0.0 warfare fully-realised.
The dev also mentioned a number of possible rebalancing changes relevant to the role of the cynosural jammer in its proper function of suppressing capitals and in terms of its relationship with other defense elements. It is right that the devs look at these issues.
The risk of choosing to deploy a cynosural jammer, if one wishes to put it in those terms, as against the reward for deploying a cynosural jammer needs to be examined. I was careful to point out the advantages and disadvantages of deploying this structure. It is on that basis that I came to the view that a rebalancing is needed. I have only suggested some possibilities. It's quite possible none of them will happen in any form. If that is so, then I would say some other change in the overall mechanics surrounding POS warfare becomes vital and necessary. What they might be, I don't know. But risk? Reward? Yes, let us return to the risk vs reward ethos, by all means.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Ikar Kaltin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 01:44:00 -
[99]
Hi,
I run some POS's, more than Id like but still.
Anyway, lets look at the mechanics of this all. Large control towers (needed, realistically for sov in systems) each cost 360mil, non faction. For a realistic defence of a system you are looking at at least 6 of these poses per system (which lends the neccessity to deploy upto 5-infinite number od other POSes on short notice in case of pos spam), preferably alot more. This adds up to a minimum cost of 2.16billion isk in control towers alone. Then add on the cost of defence for these towers. Then add on the cost of fuel for these towers on a continual basis.
Only after at least 5 weeks (correct me if im wrong) of having a superior number of large towers in system to an enemy do you gain sovereignty 3, enough for cyno jammers and for jump bridgs.
Then after this there is the contiunal and increased fuel costs of the towers with these modules for an indeterminate amount of time until they are attacked (if ever), during which time all these poses need to be kept defended and fueled.
Should anyone be allowed to cyno capitals, or even black ops in on a whim? Heck no! You havent paid all this isk, to get this advantage just so your enemy can enter when they want, how they want in CLOAKING ships, which you can not intercept entering system or when they are in system.
Cloaking is over powered as it is, but this is not a place for that.
The system as it is WORKS. It is not broken, we can see that by the continued warfare across the board taking outposts and sov etc. It is a defensive measure, a needed defensive measure. It gives some confidence nd support to people who have spent however much isk deploying all these poses, and even outposts to a system.
If pos warfare is open to those who have not spent x billion building up for the attack then they can attack poses in low sec, if they have not spent x time fueling and maintaining poses from attack and keeping them active then they should not be able to roll in with ships that no one can do anything about and kill at will.
POS's were developed as a defensive structure. They have a large intial and continued cost to maintain, give them some advantage and dont increase the cost and the effort of the darned things to maintain.
The OP is from someone who wants to grief and kill with minimum losses, just to avoid going through a stargate. Stargates are meant for travel, let people use them for it. If a system is put in for cov ops to cyno into a cyno jammed system make it at least possible to see a cov ops cyno when you have sov,AND make it possible to find cloaked ships easily where you have sov.
Otherwise you are just massivly increasing the effort and cost for the defender in general maintance of these darned things for not enough gain. This game is supposed to be about fun, not bending over backwards to log on, fuel and keep active something that you have already spent so much more isk on building and maintaining than griefers and attackers ever will attacking.
If people want to get into cyno jammed systems and kill jammers then let them do it fighting tooth and nail, not flying around in a darned cloaked ship saying "You cant catch me cos you cant see me". Its far too easy to get into a system doing that as it is.
Stop complaining because people actually put in the time and effort to build something so that you cant take 5 mins and say "oh look, everything you spent months and months building and maintaining is worth jack".
Ikar.
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 01:59:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Pezzle
Edited by: Pezzle on 28/01/2008 22:46:19
This is not about ego or agenda. I would say that while my post may have some bias, it contains less than some in this thread. Certainly there is less hostility ;)
Describe your plight. You assume too much. I am not mad, I want legitimate answers to my questions.
Quote:
The facts remain. Large groups preying on the smaller is one reason these modules exist in the first place. Smaller groups attacking larger groups is indeed an issue, but not one that can favorably be resolved by most of the propositions in this thread. If you make it 'easy' for a small group it becomes a cakewalk for a large one and nothing is solved. It is about the numbers. I am not particularly pleased with the current systems but I CAN see the harm in changing functions of this magnitude in order to cater to a certain playstyle.
So, basically you are telling me how to play my game. You are saying that covert cyno generators being allowed in Cyno Jammed systems and cyno jammers 'jamming bridges' would have no positive effect on small organizations being able to assault your territory?
So you would basically just like them to review and ho hum around the idea of fixing SoV magically 'one day' while the current game mechanics choke the very life out of your enemies while you laugh at them because you got lucky on the lottery of which game mechanic you subscribed to?
Serious man... do you thing tossing a dog a bone with proper implementation is catering to one playstyle? I don't have jump bridges, cyno jammers, 0.0 research outposts, SoV 4 immunity or any of that crap. And somehow I am asking for special treatment? Wow... just wow.
Team Minmatar
|
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 02:30:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Ikar Kaltin
I run some POS's, more than Id like but still.
Hi, I ran 5 deathstars myself and the logistics for another half dozen. In the time where we didn't have levels of SoV. Your job is far easier now that it was then.
Quote:
cost rubbish
1 Black Op Ship, half a billion. 50 Stealth Bombers... half a billion. HP to HP comparison between a Deathstar vs 50 stealth bombers is like comparing egg shells to the great wall of china. Quote:
Only after at least 5 weeks (correct me if im wrong) of having a superior number of large towers in system to an enemy do you gain sovereignty 3, enough for cyno jammers and for jump bridgs.
5 weeks = 2 and a half fuelings. To break SoV control you have to deploy more POSs and have them contest SoV for 7 days. Stront timers last for ~2.5 days right? Meaning there are about 2 chances for defenders to break those POS before SoV drops. Even if putting YOUR pos into reinforced you can still be able to repair the cyno jammer and control the fight. Quote:
Then after this there is the contiunal and increased fuel costs of the towers with these modules for an indeterminate amount of time until they are attacked (if ever), during which time all these poses need to be kept defended and fueled.
Don't forget considerable logistics, PVE, fuel consumption and fleet movement benefits you gain too. Quote:
Should anyone be allowed to cyno capitals, or even black ops in on a whim? Heck no! You havent paid all this isk, to get this advantage just so your enemy can enter when they want, how they want in CLOAKING ships, which you can not intercept entering system or when they are in system.
So you don't care about balance and you don't care about the isk investment others take to PVP you without even contesting SoV? That is not biased. No not at all. You are so worried someone is going to come in and rob you blind you don't count the pennies they spend out their own purse do you?
Quote:
Cloaking is over powered as it is, but this is not a place for that.
Whatever.
Quote:
The system as it is WORKS. It is not broken, we can see that by the continued warfare across the board taking outposts and sov etc.
It is very much broken. But people aren't just going to STOP fighting each other... the bloody purpose and center of the game just because we hate the mechanics. It will only fuel the rivalry and bitterness even more because of all the effort involved. That doesn't mean its peachy keen and should stay that way.
Quote:
It is a defensive measure, a needed defensive measure. It gives some confidence nd support to people who have spent however much isk deploying all these poses, and even outposts to a system.
Noone wants to come in and rob the cradle. Stop acting like a victim before you even get victimized. PVP is the nature to this game and one side can't hold every single card.
Quote:
If pos warfare is open to those who have not spent x billion building up for the attack then they can attack poses in low sec, if they have not spent x time fueling and maintaining poses from attack and keeping them active then they should not be able to roll in with ships that no one can do anything about and kill at will.
Do you even comprehend the cost it is to run logistics for an attack on SoV? Do you understand the required man hours to setup just a cyno jammer bashing op? The dreads to bring down the POSes? The insurance? The stront logistics?
Quote:
POS's were developed as a defensive structure. They have a large intial and continued cost to maintain, give them some advantage and dont increase the cost and the effort of the darned things to maintain.
No, actually they were developed as industrial bases. Hence the labs, refineries and construction arrays and the bonuses they get. Sov was added when people complained that station ping pong was too risky and time intensive and outpost would be crazy under that system... oh the irony.
Team Minmatar
|
Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 02:32:00 -
[102]
reserved
Team Minmatar
|
Reto
The Last Resort
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 02:55:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Reto on 29/01/2008 03:04:52
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
thats an formidable idea .
but:
eve is just a game and expecting players to play eve for 24 hours straight to protect such an array is just inhumane  . onlinegaming addiction is a phenomena which shouldnt be fuled by gamedesign.
another point is that its easier to kill a rebalanced cynojammer than anchoring such a thing and sit there for 24h hours with a gigantic blob to insure its survival.
however the idea of a offensive cynogenerator gives a lot of opportunities for smaller goals within teretorial warfare.
make this jammer be anchorable everywhere in space so smaller attack groups can run around and scan for those.
make terretorial warfare a race between agressor and defender where the agresor can put dozens of these within a sys and the defender can scan em down forcing both parties to invest time and money in the destruction and defence.
make the deployment hard but not too complicated so a smaller attack group has a fair chance to anchor it.
make the prize of such a offensive cyno high enuff to force at least 10 ppl to defend it with claw and teeth and 10 others wanting it dead. loosing such a thing should hurt rescourcewise preventing "offensive cyno bombing".
also make it drop loads of minerals and salvage upon destruction to give the defenders the chance of making a small fortune. make eve more fast paced and more like a capture the flag race.
since pos warfare atm is slowass and capture the lag boredom.
Originally by: s4mp3r0r
"Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
|
Ikar Kaltin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 03:10:00 -
[104]
Because its late and I cant be bothered to reply to you point by point, ill just reply to the points that stick in my mind.
These posts are mainly by organisations that dont own space. Their pilots plod along doing what it is day by day, training their skills towards these things.
POS owners have to skill towards somethings (i.e. haulers etc), spend days worth of eve time maintaining and fueling these poses. You think the time that these people put into these poses for gaining sov and maintaining it for all this time should be off set by "Were a smaller group, we dont own space and want to do this, cos the game mechanics say we can do this in this space, so we want to do it in your space to you". No, thats not how it works. You goto market, you buy whatever it is you want. Those who work on poses have to actually spend hours and hours and hours each and every week on these things, they should get an advantage. Simple as that. They pay in both isk and time for this, they should get it.
This post was not just directed at SF, it was directed at all griefers who want to cyno into other alliances territory and just cloak and do whatever, if they want to get in go for.
As to the point about star gates, they are for travel. Yes jump drives have been in since beta but wait.....oh, back then the ships that could use them couldnt use jump gates.....
Eve is a game about time. The longer you have spent in game, the more you can do. The longer you have specialised on something, the better you can do it. The more time you have spent on setting up extensive poses and setting up these poses, the more advantage you have. PVP is still there, except you cant just do whatever the heck you like to those people who have actually prepared a defence against it.
And yes, i have been in an attack on someone elses sov, wasnt a nice experience, it was a grind but oh look, with all that effort we put it we got what we wanted. Your in fact looking for very little effort to get your advantage. Wait, so 5 weeks of hard and expensive pos work = advantage thats quite easily taken away by a determined foe is broken, whilst skill points for training up for a ship you can go buy from market, and rebuy easily when you lose, and get the advantage you want = not broken?
and yes, i also managed poses before the changes, and yes things were easier. Does that have much relevence here....well no not really? It slightly decreses the time you spend on poses, but those poses are just isk sinks. For 6 large non faction poses, even with sov, you are easily looking at a fuel bill per month of over 1 billion isk.
So per month, even by your own calculations, i can fuel those poses, or i can buy over 50 ships....fuel those poses and get an advantage that helps my alliance, or buy 50 ships with an exteme advantage over my enemy.
Oh and thats just the running costs for poses for one system. Balanced? I certainly dont think so.....and wait, your complainig that those who dont put all the isk in, who dont put all the time in, are at the disadvantage.
Play the game for gods sake instead of complaining that things are too hard to do. So what it take some of the fun out of it that because the defender has the advantage. It takes ALOT more fun out of the game for those building and maintaining those poses to do it. When you are willing to work god knows how many hours a week on poses, to have a constant source of isk draining from your wallets just to have a few advantages, then yeah, you can complain. When you complain just because your cloaking, jump drive capable, un-interceptable ships cant jump into some systems (when they can just as easily use a gate) then yeah, get some perspective.
Time = rewards. People pay to play this game, and spend their time working for poses and advantages. You get your advantage free. Dont whine that your getting shafted. This isnt the good ol' days, this is today. Play the game as it is, not as you want it to be.
|
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 04:56:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Pezzle
The facts remain. Large groups preying on the smaller is one reason these modules exist in the first place. Smaller groups attacking larger groups is indeed an issue, but not one that can favorably be resolved by most of the propositions in this thread. If you make it 'easy' for a small group it becomes a cakewalk for a large one and nothing is solved. It is about the numbers. I am not particularly pleased with the current systems but I CAN see the harm in changing functions of this magnitude in order to cater to a certain playstyle.
What is the harm in the cyno jammer preventing friendly jump bridging as well?
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 05:07:00 -
[106]
EVE is PvP game not "sim city in space" thus any system that reduces PvP is wrong. And PvP doesnt mean "player versus POS". And if you dont understand longer sentences ill rephrase this for you:
BOTH attacked AND defender need to put ships to risk. NOT only one side.
Defender ALREADY has an advantage of having SOV system and POS defences ready plud strontium timing. THREE advantages over attacker. You dont need another free one.
There is a saying: give a finger and he'll take whole hand. Atm it looks like this. Plus now i see lots of CVA (+ their alts) posting about "how POS mechanics are ok" wheras they only ever managed to defend POSes using blob(hi to you mr "small number of determined defenders").
And like i said before: its NOT about you. Noone really cares how long it took you to take space. Its your problem that you were ineffective enough so you needed weeks to take over space. Still there are like 20-30 other alliances of which some actually enjoy good PvP not some masochistic "lets wait and bore them to death" game.
And again - POS defences nowadays are removing one "P" from PvP. Which is totally wrong in PvP game.
|
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 05:29:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Pezzle on 29/01/2008 05:31:56
Originally by: Kelsin
What is the harm in the cyno jammer preventing friendly jump bridging as well?
On the surface this is easy and there would be little issue. Given a bit of thought and time that surface peels away revealing several issues.
*IF* the intended purpose of jump bridges is easing the burden of supply chains this entirely disrupts that process.
*IF* the intended purpose of jump bridges is making defenders capable of better response to attackers it hinders them.
Having been around for the warp to 15 days I can tell you the populace can manage with more difficult refueling. It may or may not shrink controlled space. Alliance can park fuel alts and dump multiple weeks of fuel in a system. That would circumvent much of the difficulty, and for what? My feeling is, less time fueling is more time for fighting!
The response time is tricker. 'Need for Speed'. Indeed we must react faster now to attacks at any time, anywhere. As I see it bridges actually allow an engagement. Nano gangs are an exceedingly common occurrence. Do we want actual engagements or simple piledrivers? I vote for a better chance at fighting. Now, I understand many enjoy the hit and fade routine and that is fine. Should your opponents be SOL? Should there be a chance of a stand up engagement? Beyond the nano factor is simple availability.
Perhaps CCP wants all 0.0 holdings to shrink? I cannot decide that for them. It can take time for a gang to assemble. If the attackers want a fight they might wait.Perhaps the hostiles only want ducks in a barrel? This game is driven by ships exploding at the right time. Consider the number of pilots yearning for that elusive 'good fight'. Yes, defenders can overwhelm the attackers in that way sometimes. On other occasions attackers have all the right numbers and do the job. Remember the attacker starts out with choice of location and time.
Before we get carried away there is another issue to be raised. What you pose is a choice between slower response times (less actual fights) and cap ships online. That is not much of a choice.
I am sorry if a bit of this was missing in my other post, it was in an earlier draft while at work and was missed as .. well there was work to be done :P
The point I am trying to make is that while the ENTIRE system needs to be examined and possibly reworked we should not discount the utility of what we have. Jammers stem cap ships online. Bridges actually enhance need for speed (which is about more than ships going fast). Is it perfect? NO.
Remember that large vs small and the reverse need to balance out. Unfortunately most propositions of the small vs large group will only further empower even larger groups to dominate the board. I want to see more small groups in 0.0. Take that however you will.
CCP must account for human nature. Right now using more will simply trump anything on the board. The proposed changes do not alter this inevitability. While we can argue nothing will prevent this it is unwise to rush for changes that, even with multiple flaws, hold the system together.
|
Weirda
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 06:35:00 -
[108]
Weirda have always feel that Cyno-Jammer would have been good opportunity for CCP to encourage multiple-simultaneous SMALL gang action.
For example - multiple jammer spanning multiple *surrounding* system (surrounding by LY, not by neighboring Gate)...
Tower would be:
-free floating in space, requiring fuel (but not absurd amounts)
-fuel could be small so that frigate can deliver. Presence of this fuel in hold though prevent any sort of cloaking 
-fuel can only be loaded/unloaded in station and into array module (preventing non corp/alliance ALT delivery of ANY form)
-can only be damage by a specific weapon system (bomb/mine/new "c4" device that is unique to one ship class, doesn't matter what it is as long as SMALL ship class)
The weapon/delivery system:
-This ship class should be existing.
-damage rule that discourage deploying 50 bomb (i.e. only 2-3 of these module will do damage at a time or something) so there is no advantage to blobbing for this task
-takes "X" minute to "activate" the destruction device
-you must remain present in system (maybe even on grid) and uncloaked until device goes off 
above only outline - point is, you are better off (somehow) not to blob that operation, and time is enough so that "multiple synchronize assault" is encourage to stop 'defending' force from being able to make it to all in time.
-only can be activated on Sov system in specific range.
maybe this too complex, but in spite of what some have said about defender advantage (Weirda absolutely agree), Weirda don't believe that it should be advantage that encourage blobs and jump in lag (people insinuating that this *should* even be tactic - lol) as "Most Effective TacticÖ", but rather one that encourage small gang warfare.
obviously too - a lot of balance would need to be done to ensure that it does not advantage massive blobs of frigate, or making massive choke point to one of the generator for example - so please don't just post "That is broken because ABC", but rather use brain and say "ABC could break that - but DEF wouldn't"...
oh - and Covops-Cyno (as Kaylana said) absolutely need to be able to jump to cyno'd system. Weirda not entirely understand their "point" without it...
suppose that this would be pretty 'huge' change though 
Weirda believe that anything which encourage this kind of warfare (instead of the "other kind" which is already encourage by about every other mechanic in space) would be well worth it in long run. Could even spring up cottage industry - or breakdown of existing corp/alliance into multiple task force... just thinking of it make Weirda
__
Weirda
 |
Barwinius
Ars ex Discordia
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 06:39:00 -
[109]
Make the cyno jammers harder to fit and remove jump bridging when they are online. Problem solved. |
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 06:48:00 -
[110]
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
Fuel won't change anything except make cyno jammers annoying. The offensive cyno generator simply moves the problem from the defensive POS to the offensive POS. Jump bridge nerfing I could see, but really the problem is focus fire from cyno jammer POS making it difficult for BS fleets to engage those POSes. The obvious fix for that is to up the fitting requirements on cyno jammers to make them impossible to fit on full death stars. Perhaps make them high PG but relatively low CPU so those POSes can still fit decent tanks, but if the defenders want to protect them, they need to show up to do it in battleships of their own.
-----
"I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..." |
|
Djuma Nihilist
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 10:04:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Vantras
The rest of the proposed "solutions" are just downright goofy. This isnt the first time we've seen major threads about unfair game mechanics from entities frustrated with fighting a particular enemy. Likely wont be the last.
Great argument there
Originally by: Vantras
I am more shocked with the proposed "solutions" from CCP then I am with an expected and somewhat repetitive complaint about fighting enemies who have invested 100's of billions of isk on defense v. the roaming "lets blow stuff up" types.
Although I reckon if the "Balance" forces the attackers to spend 100's of billions of isk, and 1000's of man hours on thier attack against a defender who does the same then perhaps we are moving in the right direction.
Even better argument. Seriously 
 |
xttz
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 10:11:00 -
[112]
If CCP wants to encourage more sub-capital fights for this mechanic, the solution is simple:
1) Make cynojammers require CPU and more grid - ideally around 90% of an average towers capacity. Once it's taken down it should not be possible to just put back online immediately with a pile of spider-tanking carriers. Reinforcing the tower ensures it is offline for a given amount of time as reward for disabling it.
2) Increase the HP on cynojammers to around 30mil.
3) Have onlining a cynojammer cause all starbase modules outside the shield except webs and disruptors to go offline. Combined with (2), this encourages a POS setup that will keep an enemy fleet around for longer, but won't be taken out by automated guns.
4) Once shot to low armour, a cynojammer goes ino a special 'reinforced' mode, based on the the remaining heavy water in the tower. This lasts somewhere around 1-3 hours. Once it ends, the cynojammer will be targetable and all pos modules requiring heavy water will offline.
5) The presence of an online cynojammer prevents the use of doomsday, fighter deployment/assignment, siege mode and triage modules within that grid only. Capital-class remote logistics modules should also be disabled.
With these changes, a cynojammer is still a target for a conventional fleet attack, and gives the defender ample chance to gather forces to fight back. Attackers are encouraged to patrol the area and keep it secure from retaliation.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 10:41:00 -
[113]
Just as clarification, the thinking behind eight hours' fuel is that it makes it nigh-on impossible to run it constantly. Maybe if you've got a couple of key systems and you really need coverage and you've got guys willing to do it then you might be able to keep it up - and even then human error's going to rear its ugly head - but otherwise it's going to be a case of turning it on when you think you need it, which is more in line with what the original concept was. Similarly, blocking jump portals makes it more of a strategic decision when to turn them on and off.
Personally I would like cyno jammers to become more of a tool with specific advantages and disadvantages, and less just something you turn on when you get sov 3 and leave running indefinitely. If the general feeling is that eight hours is feasible but annoying, then in the context of that particular change eight hours is probably too long! Again though, these are just ideas being discussed, nothing is decided yet.
Also, I regret to report that, while I said I'd keep an eye on this thread, I haven't actually read most of the subsequent replies as the signal to noise ratio seems to have taken a massive dive. I'll probably drop by again later this week to see if things have improved any
|
|
Rod Blaine
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 12:05:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Rod Blaine on 29/01/2008 12:08:09
8 hours sounds too short tbh, even considering your point that it's probably too long in such a case.
I'd say twelve hours would be good. The problem of course being that it's all too feasible to prevent people from coming into a pos/system for a few hours (including jumpdrive ships) for large groups, but not for smaller ones.
The immediately obvious workaround is keeping alts at the pos, on shared accounts. Again, not something you'd think of as desirable.
The offensive cyno generator sounds ok to me too, however you'd have to have it's anchoring generate a pos-anchoring like mail to the sovereignty holder, unless you want everyone to do a flyby of every pos they run everywhere every few hours. Just a small detail, but quite important.
[center]
Old blog |
Spoon Thumb
Caldari
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 13:35:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 29/01/2008 13:43:29
I'll try to sum this up as briefly as possible:
Cyno Jammer Nerf = Small Alliance Nerf
Right now, a small alliance, 200 to 300+ in the right environment can expect to hold a constellation of 0.0, maybe with a little help from a bigger friend or other similar sized alliances.
CVA and our allies in Providence have worked hard to build up our own little empires and defend them together against the bigger fish out there who, quite frankly could with a concerted effort, wipe us as individual alliances off the map in a matter of days
Cyno jammers aren't so ridiculous, and basically protect against some mega blob alliance coming along and randomly decimating what could have taken a smaller alliance a year to build, in the course of a weekend, purely for "sh*ts and giggles"
Sub 24 hours fuel and you might as well take them out of the game
Edit: Other changes are fine, just not sub 24 refuelling
Khaldari
khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
Keorythe
Caldari
Terra Rosa Militia
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:35:00 -
[116]
Quote:
Says yet another guy who hasn't provided a counter argument for balancing the equipment based on the risk, reward and oportunity cost of the current mechanics.
Its simply really. Infrastructure and time investment is the defender risk and outweighs what most medium sized alliances are worth including yours. A POS can cost close to 1 billion isk to to start it up. Maintaining that or even a chain of them is a pain in the rear. The attacker has no such risk other than the attacking ships used. The attacker had better be willing to put that much of an investment on the line instead some insurable ships.
Quote:
Why should I be penalized because I chose to train for jump bridges, black ops and cynoral generation 5 because you feel you have some right to move around your space like jack rabbits spitting on anything. Why should my game mechanic be totally changed to accomodate YOUR laziness. Why should YOU get more out of EVE because I refuse to put up my own POS because there are very few options to actually take space now other than Blobbing.
You have a very narrow view of BO functionality. Black Ops are made for secretive jumping. That doesn't mean it was intended cyno jammed areas. On the contrary, if they were allowed to jump into cyno jammed areas you would only need one on opposite sides and you've created your own secret jump bridge which has to be probed and which can be logged out or on at your heart's desire. This of course means no real work other than getting one Black Ops ship into a system.
Quote:
Why should I listen to anything you have to say if all you have to say reads : "I don't care about the way you play the game. Despite any logic or proof about Defenders having the short end of the stick I will claim to be the martyr. I spend x amount of days doing industry hauling for my POS and despite PURE PVP ORGANIZATIONS HAVING TO COME UP WITH THE ISK TO INVEST IN ASSAULTING OTHER PEOPLES SPACE WITH EVERY MECHANIC AGAINST THEM I will demand that no effort be taken to balance out of my favor." Quote:
YOU only have to "come up with the ISK to invest in assaulting other peoples space with every mechanic against them" once and at any time that you choose. The defender has to do it all of the time when the POS needs it or when you assault.
Quote:
You know what I do to make money to fight in 0.0? I have to NPC in someones space off their timezones, do research jobs with multiple agents, run lvl 4 missions and build up my industrial power. How is that any different of a timesink for me outside of PVP than yours just to fuel your god damned towers?
Because most sovereignty holders have to do this as well. Some POS's make money, while some make no isk at all. But then you just killed your arguement. We're discussing sovereignty control not PvP. You can crash a gate camp and infiltrate a system at your heart's content with or without someone holding sovereignty. In fact you do it better without since you can run to an Empire station which CANNOT be attacked. I would LOVE to see black ops get their range extended. It would make gate crashing and recon ships be recon in contested areas.
Quote:
I ask you Pezzle, come up with a post that doesn't revolve around the game mechanics swinging to your every favor. If you are scared about 50 to 100 Stealth Bombers cyno'ing into your POS systems then maybe you shouldn't have them in the first place. YOU can't predict when that happens? I can't predict when you are going to put up another cyno jammed POS. See how this works?
Umm...we can't predict if you do that on a gate right now. You dont need black ops to do that.
Back to the issue at hand
Lowering the HP or increasing the CPU of cyno's is a good idea as it makes them tougher to field or survive. Even both would be fine. The rest I would have to disagree. Simple problem solved.
|
Keorythe
Caldari
Terra Rosa Militia
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 14:37:00 -
[117]
continued...
|
Wesley Baird
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 15:52:00 -
[118]
The best idea's that have been posted, which are not overly complex, and relatively easy to implement and which seem to answer most peoples concerns would be
1) Jump Bridge OR Cyno Jammer in a system online
2) Cyno Jammer can be no closer than 15km to the POS shields. You want to have carrier remote rep them, fine, but you actually have to risk your carriers to do so.
Thats my take on this fine thread.
-MDK Info- |
Keorythe
Caldari
Terra Rosa Militia
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 15:59:00 -
[119]
1) Jump Bridge OR Cyno Jammer in a system online
Better to make the jammer act like a choke point node. You can currently expand several JB's in different locations but you only have 1 jammer.
2) Cyno Jammer can be no closer than 15km to the POS shields. You want to have carrier remote rep them, fine, but you actually have to risk your carriers to do so.
Capitals already at risk. If they can't break the tank of a jammer being spider repped how will they do it on a spider repped carrier? Tough even when they're in triage.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 16:01:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 29/01/2008 16:02:56
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Just as clarification, the thinking behind eight hours' fuel is that it makes it nigh-on impossible to run it constantly. Maybe if you've got a couple of key systems and you really need coverage and you've got guys willing to do it then you might be able to keep it up - and even then human error's going to rear its ugly head - but otherwise it's going to be a case of turning it on when you think you need it, which is more in line with what the original concept was. Similarly, blocking jump portals makes it more of a strategic decision when to turn them on and off.
Yeah this to be honest is what I felt Cyno-Jammers were going to be about when they were first introduced into the game. An emergency defensive measure at absolutely critical moments for key systems only that could with a lot of effort and organization turn the tide when the moment was right.
Quote:
Personally I would like cyno jammers to become more of a tool with specific advantages and disadvantages, and less just something you turn on when you get sov 3 and leave running indefinitely. If the general feeling is that eight hours is feasible but annoying, then in the context of that particular change eight hours is probably too long! Again though, these are just ideas being discussed, nothing is decided yet.
Absolutely agree. The current problem with Cyno-Jammers that most people seem to agree with is that they are just too easy to buy, setup and leave running forever that has the direct effect of making non-npc space 0.0 effectively impossible for capital assets even to travel through. Sovereignty 3 is trivially-easy to achieve for most systems and why wouldn't the people there put a cheap module online that makes even effectively "empty space" a black hole for capital ships for the foreseeable future.
I think your "feasible but annoying" concept for fueling is very good actually. It means that any committed defender can do this for short periods of high threat and siege awareness but the jammers will tend to come down in less fraught moments and allow the possibility for surprise attacks and cunning maneuvers on the part of warring parties long term. It makes territorial conquest more of a pvp game again. Makes it a battle of wits and clever strategies.
In our hearts I think we all know that a POS module that has no disadvantages and is just turned on all the time to dramatic and 100% reliable effect is not really a good idea. CCP has gotten good over the years at noticing when single tactics, modules, ships, or whatnot are unbalancing the playing field and taking action. We all learn to adapt and get used to the new environments. I'm sure the tower owners will survive having the cyno jammers change from being a must-have in every single system in Eve to something that defends only their key assets and then only if they are prepared to make a commitment in time and expense to maintain them.
"I might not have meant anything by it" |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |