Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 19:48:00 -
[1]
I've been thinking about this for a while and to me it seems an interesting addition which would allow cool new tactics (especially with the new stealthbombers).
Its a simple proposal: allow covert cynosural fields in high sec. This will allow blackops battleships to portal covert ops and recons around for surprise attacks.
Alt scouting is a lot easier in high sec since the (often NPC corp) alts enjoy CONCORD protection in empire conflicts (war decs). This in turn makes it harder to set up a trap against an opponent who knows what he/she is doing. Allowing people to portal in would be a way to avoid alt scouts by skipping several systems in one jump to allow surprise attacks.
Why? * Give a bit more use to the blackops. It has received a few boosts already but it remains highly impopular. * Increase the amount of tactics in high sec warfare (as this is already possible in low sec and 0.0). * Covert cynos already ignore cyno jammers, and cannot be easily detected (dont show up system wide on overview). So what is preventing pilots from using covert portals in high sec empire space?
Why not? * It was mentioned to me that using covert portals, traders could quickly travel great distances in blockade runners. While this is true, I do not think it will be a major downside. Blackops ships are expensive and skill intensive, not to mention you'd need a covert cyno at your destination. To travel in this manner would require 2 other pilots just to move 1 trader around, while blockade runners only have a modest cargohold. Yes, it is a downside, but I think only a minor one. * It would allow outlaws to enter high sec without getting killed at the entry stargates. I believe this is also a minor inconvenience since CONCORD npcs spawn in high sec wherever the outlaw sits for more than a few seconds, thus severely limiting the mischief they could get up to. |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 19:48:00 -
[2]
and I'm supporting it :D |
Sir Muffoon
Backdoor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 20:17:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Why not? * It was mentioned to me that using covert portals, traders could quickly travel great distances in blockade runners. While this is true, I do not think it will be a major downside. Blackops ships are expensive and skill intensive, not to mention you'd need a covert cyno at your destination. To travel in this manner would require 2 other pilots just to move 1 trader around, while blockade runners only have a modest cargohold. Yes, it is a downside, but I think only a minor one.
Not supporting because of this reason. Logistics has no reason to become any safer or easier than it already is. |
Jogvan
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 20:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sir Muffoon
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Why not? * It was mentioned to me that using covert portals, traders could quickly travel great distances in blockade runners. While this is true, I do not think it will be a major downside. Blackops ships are expensive and skill intensive, not to mention you'd need a covert cyno at your destination. To travel in this manner would require 2 other pilots just to move 1 trader around, while blockade runners only have a modest cargohold. Yes, it is a downside, but I think only a minor one.
Not supporting because of this reason. Logistics has no reason to become any safer or easier than it already is.
It can't get much safer than it is right now with cov ops cloaks, and the range on covert jump bridge is very limited.
There are already other ways for pirates to get into high sec, and it's mostly done in t1 cruisers/destroyers with the help of wormholes, orca's or just flying straight past the high sec police
Not a regular high sec dweller myself but don't see why this couldn't be allowed, might make hisec wars more fun. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 21:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
* It would allow outlaws to enter high sec without getting killed at the entry stargates. I believe this is also a minor inconvenience since CONCORD npcs spawn in high sec wherever the outlaw sits for more than a few seconds, thus severely limiting the mischief they could get up to.
We can already enter Highsec in anything up to a BC with ease, even traveling through Stargates.
A well skilled pilot that fits his BS right can even move it around in highsec, although in this case slight lag equals death.
CONCORD does not spawn when an outlaw enters Highsec. The Faction navy does.
There is no reason for an outlaw to jump to highsec via a covert cyno and blackops, other than to save time on a journey. We cant hang around an fight in highsec, even with wartargets, due to the Faction Navy spawns. The kinds of ships that can jump are also inefficient for and malicious intent such as suicide ganking due to their cost.
The issue of Blockade runners is a non starter as far as a potential problem, given the investment in multiple characters and billions worth of ship to achieve it.
Supporting your proposal. There is no reason in my mind to prevent ships jumping to highsec from low or 0.0 via covert cyno and from one highsec system to another.
One caveat: GCC should prevent jumping from Highsec to Lowsec else people can avoid CONCORD punishment.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 22:26:00 -
[6]
re Sir Muffoon: Since this issue concerns high sec only - people can already use NPC corp haulers for near complete safety. Using covert ops portals it doesnt get a lot safer... just slightly faster (with more effort as payoff) in some cases.
re RedSplat: My mistake, in my brief time as outlaw all I remember is not being able to stay in one place for very long :P - As far as GCC goes, I dont know what the current mechanic is, but you can already portal OUT of high sec. I think this is considered an exploit though. Still, this issue only concerns portalling into (or within) high sec. Director of Education :: EVE University
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 22:53:00 -
[7]
Your rationale is better than the last guy's, I have to say. I am tempted to support this, but the problem of blockade runners transporting stuff too easily is a major issue. It's easy to dismiss it, but you can transfer 10km3 per pilot per jump between distant trade hubs for next to no effort. It makes arbitrage too easy, and removes the need to actually move goods around. That isn't a good thing - I think this game has gone too far when it comes to jump logistics as is, we don't need to go further and add them to highsec as well.
It's an interesting idea, and it does make sense within the game fluff(at least, assuming Clear Skies 2 was right about highsec having empire-owned cynojammers up), but I'm not a huge fan of the mechanics. I don't like having to say no for that reason, but I think I do. Sorry. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 04:42:00 -
[8]
Im reallllly reluctant to say yes.... and I'm not so eager to say no.
This would set an precedent that CCP declared long ago... no cyno'ing in high sec other than the Empire doing its nice little light show (refer to movies hehe)
It's too easy to sneak around and such... if your going to propose anything to do with blackops... give the Black ops battleships longer range... Id rather say yes to that... or covert ops cloak. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= Dependable, Honorable, Intelligent, No-nonsense Vote Herschel Yamamoto for CSM! |
Simeon Whiteheaven
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 05:17:00 -
[9]
I think it is good idea, you have my support. |
159Pinky
Trans-Solar Works Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 07:04:00 -
[10]
Sounds like a nice addition for the high sec wars so go for it. |
|
Meissa Anunthiel
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 08:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * It was mentioned to me that using covert portals, traders could quickly travel great distances in blockade runners. While this is true, I do not think it will be a major downside. Blackops ships are expensive and skill intensive, not to mention you'd need a covert cyno at your destination. To travel in this manner would require 2 other pilots just to move 1 trader around, while blockade runners only have a modest cargohold. Yes, it is a downside, but due to the effort and hassle involved I doubt it will be widely used and as such will only be a minor problem.
Could you remind us what distance the covert jump portal allows, so we know what we're talking about?
As indication of jump distances. Jita->Rens = 13 light years Jita->Oursulaert = 12.5 ly Amarr->Rens = 13 ly Amarr->Oursulaert = 8.4 ly
With the CURRENT range of black ops jump portal (which, unless I'm wrong, is only 2 AUs), it should be more hassle than it's worth. If the range of black ops jump portal was to be extended, this could be a problem. Anything that makes hauling faster/easier/safer "kills" local markets.
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
* It would allow outlaws to enter high sec without getting killed at the entry stargates. I believe this is also a minor inconvenience since faction navy npcs spawn in high sec wherever the outlaw sits for more than a few seconds, thus severely limiting the mischief they could get up to.
Faction navies can be tanked and/or killed.
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Also, according to an outlaw in this thread, they can already enter high sec fairly easily.
You can't justify breaking something because it can be broken through another way. I believe the CSM already requested CCP change that mechanism too... (if you're refering to -10.0 ganking people in highsec by traveling in pods and jumping into ships at an orca or through an alt ejecting from his ship).
One unvoiced concern is the impact on FW.
I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue so far, so I'll be reading this thread :p
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 10:29:00 -
[12]
re Meissa: jump range on a widow is 2LY, meaning 4.5ly with Jump Drive Calibration 5.
At max skills you could do Amarr-Oursulaert in 2 jumps, and the others in 3 jumps (requiring 2 or 3 covert cyno characters for a one way route, or 3 or 4 for a two way route). Amarr-Jita is 20ly and would require 5 jumps. Keep in mind this is with Jump Drive Calibration 5 (a 35-38 day skill), JDC4 or lower adds at least one extra jump to everything. This is one of the reasons I think this will not be widely (ab)used by traders.
As far as outlaws go, I wasnt referring to pod hopping to an orca (a tactic I feel is legitimate and does not require changing). I was referring to RedSplats comment about simply flying battlecruisers and smaller through high sec gates, despite faction navy aggro. And while you state that faction navies can be tanked (which is true), can they be tanked in a stealthbomber or force recon? I doubt it. And being an outlaw in high sec disables your cloak, so that severely limits the effectiveness of outlaw SB/recon gangs in high sec.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 13:41:00 -
[13]
It's seriously that far between the hubs? I thought a lot of them were closer to each other. Assuming there are no plans to change the jump bridge range any time soon, I might actually be able to support this.
|
Dyvim Slorm
Relentless Storm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 13:53:00 -
[14]
I'll support this, it might at last make it worthwhile to get a black ops ship.
|
isAzmodeus
Low Security Military Excursions
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 15:02:00 -
[15]
I'd like to see blackops get some more use, and maybe high-sec wars could be a possibility for them.
I can't see many people devoting to effort to have multiple cyno alts (all with CFT V for covert portals), a black-ops alt, and a transport alt just to move some items from one hub to another. At that point, he could just get a few alt-freighter pilots and autopilot them wherever he wants with a lot less effort, and a lot more impact on the market. |
Suedomza Valar
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 15:03:00 -
[16]
/signed |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 15:04:00 -
[17]
Supporting this.
|
Project 001
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 18:37:00 -
[18]
Supported
|
Anari Valar
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 18:59:00 -
[19]
Sounds good to me. |
Dragon Greg
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 23:00:00 -
[20]
Great idea.
|
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.14 23:21:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal I was referring to RedSplats comment about simply flying battlecruisers and smaller through high sec gates, despite faction navy aggro. And while you state that faction navies can be tanked (which is true), can they be tanked in a stealthbomber or force recon? I doubt it. And being an outlaw in high sec disables your cloak, so that severely limits the effectiveness of outlaw SB/recon gangs in high sec.
Faction Navies instapop Stealthbombers.
If the stealthbomber pilot has terrible skills or an idiotic fit he might not even make it off gate alive. If lag is involved it can be a dicey proposal.
Not to mention the random players the thieve killmails by point outlaws in highsec.
A force recon cant realistically tank Faction Navy spawns. Even insane Passive shield regen fits cant manage it due to volley DPS from the BS.
Again, other players come into account as you are essentially helpless in any ship in highsec as an outlaw.
Faction Navy Spawns CAN be tanked in carefully tailored RR BS and CS gangs; and in theory in Crystal set, Blue pill Officer/ faction hardener, Deadspace Shield Booster fit Maelstroms as well. It takes coordination, skill and investment of isk to do so- for no gain.
As the Faction Navy cheats, once you load grid in Empire and get pointed by the Faction Navy if you cant burn to a gate or station you are assured death eventually.
I should like to make a point of stating again; not that i think you neccesarily dissagree.
Having Outlaws in Highsec is a total non issue. Let alone as a result of Covert Cynos, with them arriving in hideously expensive deathtraps that cant cloak!
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Amasai
Starfire Oasis Thalion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 11:41:00 -
[22]
I am in of the belief that eve should be as close to a believable reality as possible, from this stand point I think its stupid that covert cynos aren't usable in high sec
supported |
Izo Alabaster
Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 12:23:00 -
[23]
So, am I going to be able to pop a covert cyno at a wartarget's mission entry gate, and covertly jump right into his mission from 3 jumps out? |
Irjuna Valar
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 18:56:00 -
[24]
I like this idea |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 23:19:00 -
[25]
I'm opposed to this.
The OP suggested that this would limit the defensive use of alt sentries as defensive measures, and that might be true. However, the advantage of using an alt as a sentry over another player is marginal at best, which makes this have fairly little value in that sense. At the same time, it also magnifies many times over the value of alt acouts (and particularly neutral alt scouts) for the offensive activities. Under this plan, for example, there would be literally no way at all to defend a mining op during wartime, as the WTs would simply scout the op in a neutral alt, then nearly instantly cyno a bomber/recon fleet to the op. Same with missions, gate camps, or any other high-sec activity that doesn't involve station-hugging. Given that the key player is a neutral party, there would be absolutely no defense to this beyond staying in the station. The new griefer tactic would be to have a neutral alt try to invite his main's WTs into a mission, then drop a fleet on them via cyno.
To ensure balance, there would have to be two additional restrictions placed on covert cynos used in high-sec, in my opinion. First, they can only be used in 'empty space'. That is, they could be used at a safespot BM, but not at a station, gate, belt, or mission location. (This has the added advantage of preventing the inevitable constant multiple cyno at every key point in Jita.) Second, the cyno and resulting bridge can only be used by ships from the same corp/alliance as the cyno pilot. To clarify, these restrictions would only affect cynos lit in high-sec.
Frankly, I'm against this in any case, but without the above the game would be completely destroyed for the targets of griefer corps.
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 15:12:00 -
[26]
I agree to anything that increases the tactical options of warfare.
|
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 08:16:00 -
[27]
Indeed. Make Highsec more interesting. |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 09:35:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 18/06/2009 09:37:52 Beqc, having covert cyno generating ships become an automatic target for sentry guns and faction NPCs (for the duration of the covert cyno) is not an unreasonable request if the covert cyno is popped on grid of a gate or station for example (but not if the covert cyno is popped off grid of these entities). Afterall, while a faction may not be able to detect or jam a covert cyno easily, they can definately see if it its popped right in front of them, and it would make sense that they react to that. |
Clansworth
Farstrider Industries MARS WARFARE CENTRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 10:08:00 -
[29]
I definitely like the idea, and have suggested it before. After reading the thread here, i do agree that it could be balanced by making it a criminal offense, such that it draws sentry fire. This, more than anything, just makes sense from an RP perspective. I don't believe blockade runners will be used for much hub to hub transit, as, npc autopiloting is MUCH more effective, and actually safer in most cases. The Outlaw in high-sec problem has already been brought up and I feel it's been hashed down to a non-issue. |
TimMc
Extradition
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 13:11:00 -
[30]
Would be fun for empire wars
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |