Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] [14]:: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Vincintius Agrippa
F L O O D
61
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:39:00 -
[391] - Quote
I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand a lot of people are going to get hotdropped attempting to burn 25km back to their pos. Of course, they can light at a station and just slow warp to the pos if they aren't supers. On the other hand, this could prevent spies from grief bumping Capitals and supercaps out of pos shields. Hmm wait, cant you dock ships in ship maintenance arrays? Only YOU can prevent internet bullying! |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
514
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:22:00 -
[392] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:This applies to all cynos, including covert cynos. This is wrong. Why? I dont see any reason for this. And how are we supposed to deal with (super)carriers, assisting fighters from the edge of the field? Can similar mechanic can be applied to drone assist? So if you enter this zone , fighters are auto recalled. Still this is not perfect solution, but it is still better than current possibility to bump every thing from pos , as long as you know how.
Removing drone assist would make this a non issue. Keeping the assignment of fighters intact, I would be on board w/ the 'no cyno' zone also being a 'no assignment' zone. Another approach would be that you lose (permanant) contact w/ any assigned fighters if your dock or enter a pos shield.
Just make it so you can't reconnect if you dock or pos up. The assigning pilot can then make the choice to hang in there until the fighters return or save his bacon at the expense of his fighters.
Oddly enough it would add a mechaninc where you could intentionally bump a carrier into the pos shields to relieve him of his fighters. What's not to like about that?? If you want to play pos shield hero then you risked your fighters/bombers being bumped out of your posession. |
Amyclas Amatin
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
351
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 21:49:00 -
[393] - Quote
Why not take this up to 11 and prevent cynos on stations?
Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 22:48:00 -
[394] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Why not take this up to 11 and prevent cynos on stations?
Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again. THIS Moving caps is currently way too save. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
548
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 19:40:00 -
[395] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again.
You do know that no one moves a jump freighter in low sec and null sec "solo," right? Using a cyno already makes it not a "solo" activity. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Amyclas Amatin
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
356
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 22:27:00 -
[396] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Null and low sec Jump-freight will become killable and difficult to move solo again.
You do know that no one moves a jump freighter in low sec and null sec "solo," right? Using a cyno already makes it not a "solo" activity.
You know what I mean.
Cynos on stations reduce most of the risk of moving caps. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
Patty Loveless
Minute to Midnight
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:27:00 -
[397] - Quote
Firstly, I fully agree that the change was good, but I also disagree that the cyno-bumping was/is the only exploit happening here. At least when assigning fighters, the carrier in question needs to be outside the forcefield.
How is it not an exploit when a titan, inside a forcefield, bridges ships from outside the forcefield?
Surely if CCP deems that any form of interaction between a ship outside the forcefield and inside the forcefield is not intended and an exploit, than these types of titan bridges should be considered exploits as well. If a Titan wished to bridge pilots outside the forcefield, it should have to be outside the forcefield as well, right? |
MMak
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 03:16:00 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Fozzie is raving |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] [14]:: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |