Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ahazu Sagam
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 24eme Legion Etrangere
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
The system upgrades on sisi for fw systems are more or less useless.
Current state on sisi: - 6 levels - level 1-5: medical clones cost 10% less, +1 production slot, brokers fee reduced by 10% - than an buffer
Wouldnt it be more usefull to be that way:
level 1: - reduced reapair costs (30%) for your milita - denies access to enemy agents
level 2: - reduced medical clone costs (50%) for your milita - allows the creation of jump clones, not based on standing, for you milita
level 3: - removes access to station or enemys and neutrals with standing below -2.0 to you faction - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's
level 4: - reduced material costs for production (5%) - reduced waste from reprocessing (5%)
level 5: - buffer |
Kamelox
Szwadron Frozen Synapse
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sure it will be better , but as we all know CCP don`t like to do things properly... thay always came up with F****** useless ideas instead do something right from the beginning... |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
PvP/War related benefits instead of carebear fluff .. are you mad!?!
I think the reason why the "bonuses" are so anaemic is that they are are afraid of making it too good .. bet they plan to iterate on it as that is the new favourite catchphrase. What you suggest might be implemented next year or whenever they get fed up with our whining again ....
On a side note: Cyno-jammers have no business in lowsec. Vanilla capitals are not an issue as they are 'small' enough to die fast'ish and doesn't require special tools and massive suicide fleets to kill. Remove immunity from supers when they operate away from null and prohibit bridging into Empire .. solves all my issues with supers as a FW monkey |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:The system upgrades on sisi for fw systems are more or less useless.
Current state on sisi: - 6 levels - level 1-5: medical clones cost 10% less, +1 production slot, brokers fee reduced by 10% - than a buffer
Wouldnt it be more usefull to be that way:
level 1: - reduced reapair costs (30%) for your milita - denies access to enemy agents
level 2: - reduced medical clone costs (50%) for your milita - allows the creation of jump clones, not based on standing, for you milita
level 3: - removes access to station for enemys and neutrals with standing below -2.0 to your faction - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
level 4: - reduced material costs for production (5%) - reduced waste from reprocessing (5%)
level 5: - buffer
Take out the bit about station lockouts and I would probably support this. Well I would if I knew what a buffer was. What is a buffer? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ahazu Sagam
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 24eme Legion Etrangere
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Buffer(reserve) is extra LP in the HUB that does nothing; it creates a buffer to keep the highest upgrade running when people start plexing (because you lose lp in your HUB when people finish a plex). A single small plex would otherwise disable your highest upgrade, just have a look on sisi.
About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it, and this should be a fair compromise between people that like and dislike it. Because you opponent's need to actually spend LP (aka isk) to prevent you from docking and not only once, when you plex in this system. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:Buffer(reserve) is extra LP in the HUB that does nothing; it creates a buffer to keep the highest upgrade running when people start plexing (because you lose lp in your HUB when people finish a plex). A single small plex would otherwise disable your highest upgrade, just have a look on sisi.
About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it, and this should be a fair compromise between people that like and dislike it. Because you opponent's need to actually spend LP (aka isk) to prevent you from docking and not only once, when you plex in this system.
Thanks
I was on sisi on the second day but I don't recall seeing these mechanics. Did they change whats on sisi? Or did I not look in the right spot?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't want to have Super Capitals to be unable to fight in Low-Sec, i have been on both the receiving end and part of a number of Titan Bridge operations... they have their use just as they do in Null-Sec.
Realistically the issue most in Militia have is unlike Null-Sec, we have no viable means to prevent it. This is more true as we are unable to use Bombs and Warp Disruption Bubbles, now I'm not saying we should get these back... but neither do I want to see Capitals (even if it is just Supers) disappear from Low-Sec.
It is my hope that Sovereignty being brought to Faction Warfare, would echo how it works there. The main issue I noticed being mentioned at Fanfest, was "Who controls these systems?" ... this particularly was in question to a Cynosural Jammer.
Personally I think the best solution would be that the Militia has a Dummy Executive Corporation, think of it as a form of Council; where all of the CEOs in the Militia are automatically added as members; each with a single share. We could then vote for a Leader, who has the job of maintaining the Sov... the Leader would have the ability to assign Operators to individual systems / i-Hubs as a means of deligating responsibilities.
This wouldn't just be a good concept in terms of providing a real structure of control instead of relying on automatic systems, but actually would provide a good forum for communication between all of the Corporations. While I know that this already happens to a limited degree, having an official place to discuss and talk about issues would help provide more united Militias.
While I know that Caldari Militia is probably the worst case of this right now, there other militias all have 2-3 Alliances that don't exactly see eye-to-eye or get along. Having a mechanic in the game where it would be beneficial to work together or play the politics game (where it can be kept without bringing the whole militia in to it) really can be nothing but a good thing.
I also think there should be some systems, such-as Intaki (part of the Caldari-Gallente low-sec) that remain Neutral Ground; rather than being part of one Sov or the other.
Honestly CCP should be looking at Sov within Faction Warfare as a way of blueprinting and testing mechanics in an on-going war situation, so that they can eventually roll those out in to Null-Sec to improve the situation there. Don't get me wrong Null-Sec Sov is a damn sight better than the original Territorial Game, but it still isn't exactly a fantastic solution... it is however a good basis, getting it right in Faction Warfare especially with the Dust links; will definately go a long way to provide a better system for Sov Space imo atleast. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
RavenTesio wrote: Honestly CCP should be looking at Sov within Faction Warfare as a way of blueprinting and testing mechanics in an on-going war situation, so that they can eventually roll those out in to Null-Sec to improve the situation there. Don't get me wrong Null-Sec Sov is a damn sight better than the original Territorial Game, but it still isn't exactly a fantastic solution... it is however a good basis, getting it right in Faction Warfare especially with the Dust links; will definately go a long way to provide a better system for Sov Space imo atleast.
CCP almost certainly agrees with you on this. That is why as Ahazu Sagam says: "About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it..." even though those in faction war are generally not in favor of it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
FIRST GENERAL
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[
I fully endorse this change. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping htem here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2320
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
These are some great ideas!! The good news is that this is really just the first pass at upgrades and improvements to Faction Warfare, CCP will be adding more features like the ones you're describing, as well as adjusting the problems with the initial Inferno release in the days ahead.
Brainstorming ideas for more worthwhile upgrades is very helpful, and the CSM will be sure to pass the popular ones on to the developers. We've already been stumping for a few of them, and CCP has a lot in store for us beyond May 22. Keep up the good suggestions! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lock out wrote:Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. Still not convinced the solution is to add jammers to LS, would be more elegant to include a restriction in whatever changes they end up doing to the cyno's themselves. Examples: - Spool-up, - Limit of say 20 Caps or 10 Supers per cyno (with cyno's unable to be fitted to capitals). - Long'ish recalibration after jumping - etc.
Trick is to still allow for a full drop but only if the jumpers are extraordinarily well prepared, otherwise they have to take serious some risks.. rather than present where it is merely "log-on, press jump".
|
Popiejopie
Mentally Unstable Enterprises Drunk 'n' Disorderly
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
i like the chages u propose, gives a real feeling of control for the work you put into it. The chages for control of a system that they want to implement now is of no benefit at all. Some more determind changes will definatly stir up faction warfare again. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
61
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:10:00 -
[14] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Lock out wrote:Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. Still not convinced the solution is to add jammers to LS, would be more elegant to include a restriction in whatever changes they end up doing to the cyno's themselves. Examples: - Spool-up, - Limit of say 20 Caps or 10 Supers per cyno (with cyno's unable to be fitted to capitals). - Long'ish recalibration after jumping - etc. Trick is to still allow for a full drop but only if the jumpers are extraordinarily well prepared, otherwise they have to take serious some risks.. rather than present where it is merely "log-on, press jump".
First, 10 supers is still an advantage that will instawin you most lowsec fights, not even mentioning 20 pantheon archons. And second, what would stop ppl bringing 5 cynos on field and bringing 50 supers in that way ? Low sec is not all FW, there would still be plenty low sec that wouldn't be affected by cynojamming and even in FW it would be a costly upgrade so it wouldn't be in every system. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2320
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:Buffer(reserve) is extra LP in the HUB that does nothing; it creates a buffer to keep the highest upgrade running when people start plexing (because you lose lp in your HUB when people finish a plex). A single small plex would otherwise disable your highest upgrade, just have a look on sisi.
About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it, and this should be a fair compromise between people that like and dislike it. Because you opponent's need to actually spend LP (aka isk) to prevent you from docking and not only once, when you plex in this system.
Now this certainly is another angle the CSM can take up regarding the station docking issue, possibly turning it into an upgrade rather than a default mechanic. I disagree though with making it the first upgrade possible, because the upgrades are cheap enough this still means that most systems will suffer from lockout, which doesn't go very far in making it less of an issue than it is.
We've already discussed things like sentry fire and denial of services, or limiting docking to FW stations only (It still makes little sense to me that the Quafe station I live in would boot me if the Amarr took Sovereignty), but as you can see CCP is pretty committed to trying this out in its current form since it made it to SiSi.
Depending on how players adapt in the coming war post May 22, moving station lockout to a high-level upgrade could certainly be a viable fix if it becomes a game-breaking problem. We'll be sure to discuss this with the developers. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
ForU2nV
Assisted Genocide Unprovoked Aggression
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. |
Gallactica
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
78
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:32:00 -
[17] - Quote
+ 1 for cyno jammers in low sec. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
ForU2nV wrote:Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. Also who would be in charge of ON/OFF 'ing these cyno jammers? Would the space completely shut down to any capital that doesnt belong to that militia?
Well. at least then we'd have a chance to fight PL and NCdot in subcaps. And last time Gal Mil fought PL in subcaps in Nisuwa, Gal Mil won , the only reason they couln;t hold the field beeing that after losing 20 or so Rokhs and couple chimeras, PL brought in the titans. SO in that regard, getting a chance to fight PL or otherbig entitites in subcaps would level the playing field and would make for great pvp.
As for who would be in charge, I assume a mechanic could be designed, like the corp that had most damage on flipping the i-hub would be the one able to anchor the cyno jammer in that system. |
Drackarn
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Cyno jammers +1! http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.com/ |
Lord Morgo
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1 |
|
Akuma Nei
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (DEFINITELY!!!!)
I fully endorse this change.
+1 |
LizzardCUT
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
+ 1 for cyno jammers in low sec. |
RobekPL
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
+1 cynojammers
|
ForU2nV
Assisted Genocide Unprovoked Aggression
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lock out wrote:ForU2nV wrote:Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. Also who would be in charge of ON/OFF 'ing these cyno jammers? Would the space completely shut down to any capital that doesnt belong to that militia? Well. at least then we'd have a chance to fight PL and NCdot in subcaps. And last time Gal Mil fought PL in subcaps in Nisuwa, Gal Mil won , the only reason they couln;t hold the field beeing that after losing 20 or so Rokhs and couple chimeras, PL brought in the titans. SO in that regard, getting a chance to fight PL or otherbig entitites in subcaps would level the playing field and would make for great pvp. As for who would be in charge, I assume a mechanic could be designed, like the corp that had most damage on flipping the i-hub would be the one able to anchor the cyno jammer in that system.
But then this issue could be reversed on none factional warfare entities, For Example: FW - take system control and initialise system wide cyno jam, they would have there own supers and capitals in system with the cynojammers giving them an unfair advantage against an attacker.
We all know how much of a force multiplier a triage archon is, when supporting a subcap fleet. imagine a 10 man RR pantheon fleet sat ontop of a cyno jammer providing a continous rep. youd never kill it with an average subcap fleet. Dont get me wrong the ideas are good but there needs to be a balance.
A possible idea would be to lock out a few systems in game permanently to any entities that are not involved in factional warfare for a militia. but again this seperates the FW peeps, from the rest of eve. Simple matter of fact is, it is going to be incredibly difficult to make a 'fair' balance to all parties on this issue. There are viable counters in game right now to people dropping 20 supers on you, providing you have the manpower and the knowhow. |
EXOCET11
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Like ... Yes.. |
PC5
Szwadron Frozen Synapse
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:18:00 -
[26] - Quote
+1 Cyno jamer and other good ideas |
Clodim
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
PC5 wrote:+1 Cyno jamer and other good ideas +1 |
Loren Gallen
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
+1
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2324
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lord Morgo wrote:Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1
Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Monticore D'Muertos
Goats With Frickin' Rocket Launchers
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:42:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
+1 |
|
FIRST GENERAL
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
113
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:44:00 -
[31] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.
More alts to shoot? Awesome - more kills is always good.
It gets FW on the diplomatic map in the Eve Universe as well. Get it done CCP!
|
Monticore D'Muertos
Goats With Frickin' Rocket Launchers
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:46:00 -
[32] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.
More alts to shoot? Awesome - more kills is always good. It gets FW on the diplomatic map in the Eve Universe as well. Get it done CCP!
Who knows, maybe those alt pilots will like being able fly their ships and give up on F1 land. |
ForU2nV
Assisted Genocide Unprovoked Aggression
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:47:00 -
[33] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Morgo wrote:Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1 Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.
As previously stated, there are counters in game to counter 0.0 hotdrops, all it takes is manpower, co-ordiantion and the right tactics.. It seems that people are wanting a 'quick fix' or an 'instant win' button as a counter, as opposed to actually putting some 'effort' in. People don't like being hotdropped by 30 SC's, build up, do something about it. all the current people doing the 'hotdropping' have put vast amounts of 'effort' into building themselves up in order to do what they do. They should be penalised because people who have put in less effort are 'tired' of getting hit with a big stick??? I do want to point out at this point that i do live in low sec, i am in no way affiliated with the large alliances doing the hotdropping and i have been on the recieving end. But i would rather, build and adapt than have some game mechanic turn eve into 'EASY MODE.' |
Pulgy
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
+1 cyno jammers. make it happen ccp.
No range? No problem!Join the Church of the Holy BlasterGäó . A Hybrid religion. |
Tekitha
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Gallactica wrote:+ 1 for cyno jammers in low sec.
this
|
Gallactica
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
88
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:06:00 -
[36] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Morgo wrote:Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1 Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.
If that's the only major concern then jesus h Christ do it already! |
Annie Anomie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
I am Annie Anomie and I endorse this suggestion.
Really, if lowsec is supposed to be it's own thing then it'd be nice if you could fart in lowsec without a bunch of supers dropping on your head. |
Madbuster73
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:20:00 -
[38] - Quote
Make it so:
Level 4: Station Lock out Level 5: Cyno-Jammers!!!
That will Balance Low-sec vs big 0.0 Alliances !!! |
Lord Morgo
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:33:00 -
[39] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Morgo wrote:Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1 Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.
If 0.0 alliances want to field armies of alts that:
- Have to run plexes
- Score Kills
- Give me LP for farming them to power my cyno jammer
They are actively participating in FW, and I have no problem with that. Just make cyno jamming expensive. That way they have to keep the numbers low to get LP returns from plexing. Then we can kill them. |
Dread Delgarth
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:35:00 -
[40] - Quote
Surely from a RP angle Cynosural System Jammers should be in the hands of the FW Militia holding the system?
+1 from me for this addition. |
|
RudeX X
Shirak SkunkWorks
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:39:00 -
[41] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
+1 |
FlyingSpoonyBadger
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:45:00 -
[42] - Quote
+1 Cyno jammers & level 4 upgrade to lockout stations. |
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:59:00 -
[43] - Quote
Hans seems to be listening, cool. Here are my ideas. If you want more just ask. I have many. My platform is "get the heck out of our sandbox"
1 - I have long thought that a high-sec route between warring parties is silly. Everyone just goes to Jita. I feel there should be NO high-sec route between Gallente/Minnie space and Caldari/Amarr. This will de-centralize commerce and honestly make the game more interesting.
2 - For factional warfare to be "relevant" it needs to affect the players not doing it. It needs to change the landscape of EVE. Over time I would like to see the efforts of the Factional armies to actually move the boundaries of the empires. There are two aspects and that is Sov and Sec Status. In the near term being able to push low-sec in between the two empires would be very cool. Cutting off commerce between the two blocs would really make FW "relevant".
3 - Granularity in factions. Being able to join Serpentis, Blood Raider, Ni-Kunni, or whoever. Pirate factions could give out LP for blowing stuff up in the regions they are currently "infesting". The pirate factions would tie into "low-sec" more than "sov".
4 - Light defense of low-sec regions by faction police and sentry guns. Having a small response would be cool. It would make entering enemy space noticable. They would be killable, but always around.
5 - Over time captured space eventually becomes high-sec. 0.5 can be "invaded" somehow, up to certain limits. Being able to push your empire across the map is an end game which I thought would be implemented a long time ago. This would allow EVE high-sec and low-sec to be moving. It could take 3 or 4 months for a system to change hands, but it would really be something if an empire could lose everything but it's core regions.
If the boundaries of empires could move. If factional warfare could isolate and reduce another empire down to a region or two. If players could side with NPC factions that have different goals, standings, and philosophies, that would make EVE breathe again. The NPC drama would pick up huge! I mean having lowsec moving slowly towards your manufacturing/missioning center would certainly be an NPC major event, and might encourage you to lend your local militia a hand. |
Maria Holmes
Comply Or Die Drunk 'n' Disorderly
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 21:04:00 -
[44] - Quote
Cyno jammers +1! |
Time Funnel
Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 21:10:00 -
[45] - Quote
And on second thought let Pirates take space. After all, one person's 0.0 is another person's high or low-sec. That would certainly spark some conflict between the NPCrs and Missioners within an NPC 0.0 region when they get locked out of the stations. :P |
Pulgotas Shadow
Paradise Lost Army
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 22:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
+1 Cyno jamming |
Lassoo
Mentally Unstable Enterprises Drunk 'n' Disorderly
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 22:19:00 -
[47] - Quote
Went to Black Rise in my Navy Slicer to sort out some dudes who thought it would be fun to drop Super Capitals
Must have scared them off cos i haven't seen them since !
+1 cyno jammers
|
JT133
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
56
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
Brigadier General & Legatus Commodore JT133 also would like to see this change occur. |
Oppon's Pull
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 01:02:00 -
[49] - Quote
Worried about balance on the cynojammer? make it cost a considerable amount of LP/hour to function and you will see it used only when it needs to be rather than spamming the jamming accross the FW zone. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 01:33:00 -
[50] - Quote
Quote:Worried about balance on the cynojammer? make it cost a considerable amount of LP/hour to function and you will see it used only when it needs to be rather than spamming the jamming accross the FW zone. You could require a certain level of system upgrades before the jammer is installed, but it will be offline unless militia members decide to fuel it with additional LP. This could be adapted to other possible high-tier upgrades as well, like militia jump portals. Light a cyno and have a gang mate shove in some LP.
Other upgrades I would like to see -A real lowsec industry buff, rather than the joke that we're getting. An idea I put forth in the devblog thread is that the production of faction appropriate ships would receive a bonus to both ME and PE in upgraded militia systems. Possibly exceeding perfect ME if you're working off a blueprint that already has it. -More military infrastructure. Things like cynojammers, Jump Portal generators (not jump bridges), station guns that shoot wartargets, and npc military presence (outside of plexes). -Improved Station Services: let militia members get cheaper repairs, better insurance contracts, cheaper clones, better refining, etc... |
|
Seanigulous
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 04:15:00 -
[51] - Quote
+1 for cyno jammers as an upgrade, even if insanely expensive... |
Galus Mendak
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 04:26:00 -
[52] - Quote
+1 to the Cyno jamming
Keep the 20 man super blobs where they are and let FW be something besides 0.0 |
Tuxedo Moon
Dewa Brotherhood Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 05:24:00 -
[53] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
+1 to cyno jammers. Great change that will greatly improve fleet warfare in low sec.
|
Natalya 'Rhen
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 06:08:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:The system upgrades on sisi for fw systems are more or less useless.
Current state on sisi: - 6 levels - level 1-5: medical clones cost 10% less, +1 production slot, brokers fee reduced by 10% - than a buffer
Wouldnt it be more usefull to be that way:
level 1: - reduced reapair costs (30%) for your milita - denies access to enemy agents
level 2: - reduced medical clone costs (50%) for your milita - allows the creation of jump clones, not based on standing, for you milita
level 3: - removes access to station for enemys and neutrals with standing below -2.0 to your faction - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
level 4: - reduced material costs for production (5%) - reduced waste from reprocessing (5%)
level 5: - buffer
Yes, please. |
Smodab Ongalot
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
102
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 13:18:00 -
[55] - Quote
+1 to zeee jammers of cynos
Too many fights like this one could have continued if not for the super blob.
http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?brid=6988
And this, very much +++++:
Time Funnel wrote: 1 - I have long thought that a high-sec route between warring parties is silly. Everyone just goes to Jita. I feel there should be NO high-sec route between Gallente/Minnie space and Caldari/Amarr. This will de-centralize commerce and honestly make the game more interesting.
|
Akaraman
Novus Ordo Seclorum Drunk 'n' Disorderly
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 16:58:00 -
[56] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
I fully endorse this change
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2346
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 17:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
Cross-posting a great set of answers from the developers about the upcoming changes, and what lies next for Faction Warfare:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1278754#post1278754 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 18:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lord Morgo wrote:Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1 Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration.
I would point out that while I an unsure about the other Miltias, we are already experiencing this within the Caldari Militia. We also have a few suspicions on some new members within the Minmatar Militia as well.
This may have been due to some recent events, but it is clear that the Sov Space Alliances have a vested interested in maintaining their control within Low-Sec; something that even the most organised Militia Corps / Alliances are really ill equipped to handle.
Don't get me wrong it isn't that we can't fight back, although sometimes this is an issue when overwhelming firepower is fielded; but it is more that when we commit Capitals and Supers it carries a far bigger risk as replacing them is a far more difficult proposition for us... ESPECIALLY Super Capitals, as we cannot build them ourselves but MUST rely upon Sov Alliances.
Cyno Jammers imo would be little more than a stop-gap measure, until these Alliances choose to simply blob in sub-caps to deal with our advantage. Would a better option not to be provide a Soft-Cyno Jammer (i.e. doesn't disable, but insteads reduces jump-range and / or size that can jump in to a system... similar to W-Space Mechanics) along with the ability to purchase Capitals (including Titans) via the LP Store, but unlike normal ships where you get them immediately they are Produced taking the time they normally would. When they are compete we can then choose where our Faction Navy Delivers them (i.e. Starbase we own within Low-Sec)
This to me would help level the playing field without directly disabling peoples abilities within Low-Sec. |
Lucian Thorundan
House Of Serenity. Unprovoked Aggression
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 03:37:00 -
[59] - Quote
Time Funnel wrote:Hans seems to be listening, cool. Here are my ideas. If you want more just ask. I have many. My platform is "get the heck out of our sandbox"
1 - I have long thought that a high-sec route between warring parties is silly. Everyone just goes to Jita. I feel there should be NO high-sec route between Gallente/Minnie space and Caldari/Amarr. This will de-centralize commerce and honestly make the game more interesting.
2 - For factional warfare to be "relevant" it needs to affect the players not doing it. It needs to change the landscape of EVE. Over time I would like to see the efforts of the Factional armies to actually move the boundaries of the empires. There are two aspects and that is Sov and Sec Status. In the near term being able to push low-sec in between the two empires would be very cool. Cutting off commerce between the two blocs would really make FW "relevant".
3 - Granularity in factions. Being able to join Serpentis, Blood Raider, Ni-Kunni, or whoever. Pirate factions could give out LP for blowing stuff up in the regions they are currently "infesting". The pirate factions would tie into "low-sec" more than "sov".
4 - Light defense of low-sec regions by faction police and sentry guns. Having a small response would be cool. It would make entering enemy space noticable. They would be killable, but always around.
5 - Over time captured space eventually becomes high-sec. 0.5 can be "invaded" somehow, up to certain limits. Being able to push your empire across the map is an end game which I thought would be implemented a long time ago. This would allow EVE high-sec and low-sec to be moving. It could take 3 or 4 months for a system to change hands, but it would really be something if an empire could lose everything but it's core regions.
If the boundaries of empires could move. If factional warfare could isolate and reduce another empire down to a region or two. If players could side with NPC factions that have different goals, standings, and philosophies, that would make EVE breathe again. The NPC drama would pick up huge! I mean having lowsec moving slowly towards your manufacturing/missioning center would certainly be an NPC major event, and might encourage you to lend your local militia a hand.
+1 to this, im not involved in FW at the moment, but i have always thought it seemed odd that there was H/S paths between the two warring EVE faction alliances (caldari & Amarr vs Min and Gal), having a "no mans land" of low sec F/W systems, where the f/w stuff actually changes the landscape of EVE would be excellent.
I wouldn't say reducing a whole empire down to just core regions would be doable, but I get the idea.
I think the game would have an excellent shift if the H/S paths went away and became flux'ing L/S F/W systems, with control of them varying between the factions at all times.
Also i think having sec status of a system be related to its proximity to the core / low sec regions would be cool too, as you said, have a 0.5 system be able to be "downgraded" somehow to 0.4 and have the 0.4's be able ot go up to 0.5 would be a really cool game mechanic too, if a F/W group holds a l/s system for long enough, its gets "folded" into the empire. It lines up with the game lore in that they say H/S is areas they have controlled for long enough and have the forces to maintain, thats F/W right there in my eyes!
Baby steps, but this would be an amazing change for the game. |
Ammon Dei
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 04:07:00 -
[60] - Quote
Low Sec Cyno Jammers +1
Finally allow some of the smaller low sec entities to compete with the larger cap blobs of 0.0. |
|
Juan Rayo
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 04:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Galus Mendak wrote:+1 to the Cyno jamming
Keep the 20 man super blobs where they are and let FW be something besides 0.0
+1 do iiiit |
Gallactica
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
93
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 12:30:00 -
[62] - Quote
Has this been implemented yet? |
Mr Hyde113
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 18:08:00 -
[63] - Quote
Quote:Galus Mendak wrote: +1 to the Cyno jamming
Keep the 20 man super blobs where they are and let FW be something besides 0.0
I fully support this change.
-Hyde |
Victoria Ashley Williams
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:20:00 -
[64] - Quote
+1 to Cyno Jammers |
MrRrama
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:32:00 -
[65] - Quote
+1 for Cyno Jammers! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2353
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:40:00 -
[66] - Quote
Gallactica wrote:Has this been implemented yet?
Uhh.....no. And it won't be until there's a way to implement the feature without destroying normal gameplay for those not involved with the war in the process. Neutrals run level 5 missions in carriers and use jump freighters to haul in and out of low sec, large alliances rely on lowsec as travel routes, etc. This shouldn't just shut down completely as militias cynojam the crap out of every FW system.
The idea is postponed until a decent system can be figured out. Who deploys the cynojammer? Anyone with LP? A particular corp? An elected "general" ? Is it on a POS, or beamed from the IHUB? Does it affect militias only, or does it affect everyone? How long does it last? Who turns it on and off?
These are pretty serious questions, and CCP was wise not to rush this one particular feature, though I personally LOVE the idea of keeping Pandemic Legion from hot dropping all our fights.
I'll definitely be speaking a lot more with them in the days ahead, I'm glad you all are into it as well, but remember coming up with answers to those questions is way more helpful than just saying "cynojammers! woot! +1" Cause its not a matter of if as much as how.
Also, I don't want to hear any whining about how we're becoming like nullsec if I keep pushing for this, you're the ones asking for it ! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Tekitha
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 04:00:00 -
[67] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: [Neutrals run level 5 missions in carriers and use jump freighters to haul in and out of low sec, large alliances rely on lowsec as travel routes, etc. This shouldn't just shut down completely as militias cynojam the crap out of every FW system.
Not all lowsec is the FW zone, if these entites cannot deal with the cyno jammers, either by means of diplomacy with the owning corp, or by blowing them up then they should move to a lowsec that isn't FW related.
Who deploys the cynojammer?
there are a few ways this could be resolved. For starters there could be a mechanic put in place whereby only corps with a member count above 50, or 75 maybe would have the ability to deploy cyno jammers. This would stop FW mission farmers or random griefers from deploying them in important systems and ruining things. It would also ensure that there would be a decently sized corp with the on / off switch. Most corps over 75 members are on friendly terms with each other so there shouldnt be any issue of Corps trolling each other.
It could also be based off an average count of pilots from a particular corp in a system per day, so particular corps home systems would obviously fall to them for cyno jammer deployment. A combination of this and the above paragraph would be perfect imo.
As I said there are various ways that could make this a non issue, I've listed two here off the top of my head, CCP get paid to come up with these ideas, I don't so thats all I'll suggest for now.
Is it on a POS, or beamed from the IHUB?
It would be too exposed at an IHUB (unless these IHUB's are going to get defenses similar to that of a large POS?) so the answer would have to be at a POS belonging to the corp selected by the above method.
Does it affect militias only, or does it affect everyone?
every1 ofc, what use is it otherwise? - silly question.
How long does it last?
until the owners turn it off, just like a nullsec cyno jammer.
Who turns it on and off?
The Corp that owns it ofcourse.
Quote:but remember coming up with answers to those questions is way more helpful than just saying "cynojammers! woot! +1" Cause its not a matter of if as much as how.
Done, can I have my cyno jammer now please?
Tekitha.
|
Drackarn
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 11:15:00 -
[68] - Quote
I think Tekitha pretty much nailed it.
To add my 0.01 ISK's worth.
Neuts How many systems would be cyno jammed? Who is going to pour all their hard fought LP's into random systems? You'll probably find two systems jammed in Black Rise and those are the two major FW staging posts. Probably same in most war zones. Only the important systems for FW would be cyno jammed. For example, two weeks ago in Kedama there was an epic fight until supers started getting dropped. To REALLY finish it off NC. dropped a few titans and a lot of supers. For us faction war players that's "OK pack up and go home" time. Now I very much doubt Kedama would ever be cyno jammed and that fight would still happen. However, we could pull back to a cyno system and fight there without titans being dropped on us.
There are a lot of low-sec systems and only a tiny percentage are likely to be ever cyno jammed.
Who "Owns" the jammer Pilots have to donate LP's. Surely it could be recorded who donates what and what corp they are from. The corp who puts most in, gets most out = cyno jammer
PoS/IHub Location What Tek said!
Everything else It works like a normal cyno jammer in null sec/What Tek said.
http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.com/ |
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
171
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 11:44:00 -
[69] - Quote
Cyno jammers in FW is a must. They need to be corp/alliance independent, and turned on and off via LP.
NO HP BASHING. What is the point if every race has an Jam/Damp/Disruptor/ ship etc? Not every race has to be a fluffy little mirror of each other, it's seriously not needed. Things like Gallente having the only drone BS and Caldari having the only ECM BS are incredibly cool distinctions that only add to EVE in both game play value and flavour. |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:22:00 -
[70] - Quote
As far as additional upgrades, I would like to see a few things.
First, I think there should be some benefit to POCOs and PI in upgraded systems. Some ideas are increased shield regen on POCOs. More shield hitpoints on POCOs. A bonus to PI materials extracted from installations belonging to the controlling militia. Some sort of PI material kickback to the corps holding POCOs (ie if my faction has an upgraded system and my corp own a POCO there, I get some number of PI materials sent to my corp based on what is being produced on my planet). Etc...
Second, I'd like to see a bonus to POS fuel usage in upgraded systems.
Third, I'd like to see something like Concord Billboards shoot at enemy militia while in a upgraded system. (Minimal damage, but enough to stop instalocking frigs/destroyers from camping the gates).
Fourth, I'd like to see additional station services added (ie cloning facilities where there was none, manufacturing slots where there were none, reprocessing where there was none, etc).
Fifth, very cheap office rent to the controlling faction corps and not haivng those corps offices count against the office limit.
As far as the cyno jammers, I agree with the intended purpose of limiting the hot drops by outside parties but I'm not sure how to make it feasible. 0.0 alliances should still be able to curbstomp FW corps if they really really want to, but shouldn't be able to do it because they are bored. I think something like controlling the sphere of influence of alliances would be a better solution and make Eve a bigger universe again via something like https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1297883#post1297883. |
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
213
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 13:42:00 -
[71] - Quote
If you can't build it in low sec, you shouldn't be able to field it in low sec.
Low sec cynojammers is a good compromise! |
Gallactica
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
94
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 15:41:00 -
[72] - Quote
Hans any feeback / comments on what Tekitha replied to your post with? |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
213
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 16:38:00 -
[73] - Quote
Tekitha wrote: Who deploys the cynojammer?
How about any FW corporation or alliance that puts enough LP into the system to upgrade it to L5 (independent of LP that have been put into the system upgrades) ? If you don't want griefers putting up cynos in your system then war dec them and take it out.
As for "limiting null sec entities traveling though low sec" - well then get rid of cynos in null sec because they also limit travel of super cap fleets. If the null sec entities don't like a cynojammer in low sec, they can always bring their BS fleet and take it out just like they would in null sec.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
422
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 17:19:00 -
[74] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Tekitha wrote: Who deploys the cynojammer?
How about any FW corporation or alliance that puts enough LP into the system to upgrade it to L5 (independent of LP that have been put into the system upgrades) ? If you don't want griefers putting up cynos in your system then war dec them and take it out. As for "limiting null sec entities traveling though low sec" - well then get rid of cynos in null sec because they also limit travel of super cap fleets. If the null sec entities don't like a cynojammer in low sec, they can always bring their BS fleet and take it out just like they would in null sec.
Some questions:
If you war dec a militia corp and kill them do you lose faction standings?
What if they are in the npc corp?
What if you want to cyno in something? How will your militia take it down temporarilly and who will decide this?
If only the defending side can have caps in the system won't it be pretty much impossibly hard to take the system?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
213
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 17:30:00 -
[75] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Some questions: 1. If you war dec a militia corp and kill them do you lose faction standings? 2. What if they are in the npc corp? 3. What if you want to cyno in something? How will your militia take it down temporarilly and who will decide this? 4. If only the defending side can have caps in the system won't it be pretty much impossibly hard to take the system?
1. No 2. Then they can't put up a cynojammer 3. The corporation that owns it can take it down. Same as regular cynojammers. 4. No. You can steal LP through ship limited combat to reduce system upgrade level. Cyno will be offlined. Your side can now jump your capital ships into system. |
Saiphas Cain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 17:45:00 -
[76] - Quote
I work across all strata of security space in my "legitimate business endeavors" and even I can sympathize with the FW guys on the capital and supercap issue. I've seen a lot of hunting of FW pilots by nullseccers but in my experience it's usually small gangs that are looking for a fight, not supercap blobs. The blobs are an anomaly but a serious one. As Hans mentioned though allowing widespread jamming would cause serious logistics issues. As a Goon I can say IF widespread cyno jamming were allowed in FW areas, rest assured the first minute it becomes a nullsec logistics issue someone in FW is going to be staring down the barrel of a 600 body alpha fleet about it. Nobody wants that. It's not a threat, it's just how it would end up happening.
The simplest ( perhaps not most elegant ) solution would be to designate certain systems as un-jammable per local phenomena. If key logistics systems could be identified ( that is the ones necessarily close enough light year wise ) to enable traversal of the region and those systems are designated as no-jammer zones I doubt there would be an issue. I can certainly sympathize with both sides of the argument but restricting additional elements of a ship type ( can't launch fighter bombers/fighters ) seems gamey, and is only asking for other things that don't use them like dreads and titans to come say hi.
Another alternative is perhaps adding just a few non-FW bridging systems near FW areas as an alternate place to move ships, and allow the FW areas their jammers. Sort of like a highway bypass.
All in all it's a touchy subject but even I see no reason nullsec style blob warfare should be influcted on people who prefer small gang PVP. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
213
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 17:54:00 -
[77] - Quote
Saiphas Cain wrote:... well thought out questions.
IMO, there are no real serious logistical issues. Unjammed systems would already be designated - they are non-FW systems. Anyways, the non-FW, unjammable systems are already spread out near FW space. (FW space is a fraction of total low sec space and non-sov 0.0.)
Also, I believe the 600 man goon alpha squad would dictate the which FW systems would not be jammed - which is good for the game - protection of travel routes by players, not rules. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2361
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 17:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Gallactica wrote:Hans any feeback / comments on what Tekitha replied to your post with?
It's a start, though I'm cautious about any mechanic that gives powers explicitly to larger corps over smaller corps, or to the pilot with the most LP (who could be an isk farmer for all we know who just wants to play with the jammer for lulz). Either situation could just as easily have the cynojammer become a mechanic that's used by the null sec entities we're trying to protect ourselves from.
This is another one of those situations where the community could very well ask for this, get it, than end up bitching and moaning about how its ruining FW when reddit / goonswarm / PL enlist a corp larger than any established FW corp and end up having even more control over our space than they do right now.
One of the things I hated about the FF proposal, and the reason I'm glad they postponed implementation, is this pay-per-flip "light switch" with the cynojammer. Like I've said before, sovereignty holding and sovereignty control has never been a primary reason players have engaged in Faction Warfare, that game play is already available in null sec. Giving the militias not only full station lockout, but full cyno jam control, continues to blur the line between low sec and null sec life.
Personally I'd prefer a more limited use tool, where it could be deployed an hour or two at a time with a waiting period in between, so it can be used to tactically to protect certain engagements (POS defense or IHUB control fights) without being something that permanently shuts down half of lowsec.
I'm a capital owner as well, I don't relish the idea of having to look everywhere for a place I can / can't cyno in an emergency, much like I don't relish the idea of not being able to dock everywhere either. Some people LOVE cynojammers, and some people LOVE station lockout as well, but overall I think the community's been pretty clear that marching firmly in the direction of null sec gameplay is something we're all trying to prevent.
So thats my take on cynojammers, if I had it all my own way. I'm in Faction Warfare for the frequent fights, not to see my faction have total ownership and domination of everything with its name on it. "TOTAL VICTORY!!!" Is pretty *yawn* in my book. Cynojammers sound like a lot of fun, but I'd like to see them used to create fun scenarios (where you know no one is dropping you), not to become a territorial control feature the way they exist in null.
This may or may not be my recommendation to CCP, depending on what the community comes up with as this is discussed more. At least now we know they're not being implemented in the form proposed at Fan Fest, so there's plenty of room for brainstorming still, if we get cynojammers at all its certainly not happening in the next couple weeks. CCP already has other features that ARE fully realized and just need more coding polish, they'll be working to get those out first before jumping into something as delicate as cynojammers. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |