| 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
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 13:40:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Suitonia on 18/06/2009 13:40:16
Sounds good. |
Tildes own
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 23:04:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Suitonia
Edited by: Suitonia on 18/06/2009 13:40:16
Sounds good.
|
Lexa Hellfury
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 00:40:00 -
[33]
Originally by: RedSplat
The Forum moderation Software known as Mitnal became self aware. CCP had no choice but to shut it down.
|
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 07:20:00 -
[34]
|
Herty
The Sexy Carebear Boredom Convention
|
Posted - 2009.06.19 17:23:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Herty on 19/06/2009 17:23:18
Its about time carebears got hotdropped.
|
Leyline777
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 04:27:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
Since when? Alt scouts are the life blood of dedicated empire pvp corps.
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
During a war with any decent opponent you shouldnt be doing this anyways, when you are you take your life in your hands and will probably most often loose it (specially if just sitting there mining without scouts of your own.)
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
The carebear tactic would be to not mission with anyone they dont know... oh wait thats common sense?
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.)
This is an interesting idea and i think quite feasible (though imo it should really just trigger localized gate gun aggro/ sentries/ npc ships (that are already spawned) fire. The idea being that sovereign entities dislike people opening portals to anywhere in their space. I dont think you should have gcc period but a temporary aggro to localized area (ie station and not solar system/police) would be very appropriate if fired off on grid. However missions and roid fields etc are fair game imo.)
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
This is a terrible idea and doesnt make sense mechanics or fluff wise.
Originally by: Becq Starforged
Frankly, I'm against this in any case, but without the above the game would be completely destroyed for the (less intelligent) targets of griefer corps.
fixed |
Tempest Inferno
Davy Jones Locker
Enforcers of Serenity
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 20:15:00 -
[37]
IIRC regular cyno fields were restricted to low sec to keep capitals from smart bombing trade stations. I see no reason why covert cynos shouldn't be allowed for the moving of black ops\covert ops ships. Well except for the fact that concord has all of empire space under a network of cyno jammers. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Kornashvoknar
Amarr
Atreides Defense Industries
Integrity Respect Selflessness
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 00:39:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Tempest Inferno
IIRC regular cyno fields were restricted to low sec to keep capitals from smart bombing trade stations. I see no reason why covert cynos shouldn't be allowed for the moving of black ops\covert ops ships. Well except for the fact that concord has all of empire space under a network of cyno jammers.
which dont counter cov ops cynos...
|
Uronksur Suth
Sankkasen Mining Conglomerate
Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.06.21 21:58:00 -
[39]
I like this idea.
|
Big Bit
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 23:21:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Big Bit on 23/06/2009 23:21:19
What about allowing Jump Freighter to jump to hi-sec? |
Xerox WorkCentre
|
Posted - 2009.06.24 07:44:00 -
[41]
I like the ideea |
Lionel Redstar
|
Posted - 2009.06.24 07:45:00 -
[42]
Supported. Give BO some love. |
Rivqua
Omega Wing
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2009.06.24 07:53:00 -
[43]
This would definately put black ops BS on the map, increasing the demand by as much as 500% due to both the need to have them set up bridges, as well as all the merc corps needing their BS ops fleet for when you need absolutely positevely kill that jumpy mark. |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.06.24 10:29:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Big Bit
Edited by: Big Bit on 23/06/2009 23:21:19
What about allowing Jump Freighter to jump to hi-sec?
no.
1) They require regular cynos. Allowing people to make regular cynos in hi-sec makes no sense RP wise(cynojammers etc) and opens up capitals into high sec (and restricting hi-sec cynos to JFs only would be very weird)
2) JFs have a much larger jump range than the blackops, and would allow them to very quickly travel between trade hubs with huuuuuge amounts of cargo space
The covert cyno change is intended to improve high sec combat, while leaving hauling largely unaffected.
Director of Education :: EVE University
|
ovenproofjet
Caldari
Swords of Clarity
Galactic Federation of Varied Operations
|
Posted - 2009.06.24 13:07:00 -
[45]
This is a great idea, really think it would give black ops the final boost they need. Well maybe a gang bonus would help them greatly as they now seem to take on the role of covert gang leadr |
Friggz
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:03:00 -
[46]
I'd love to see this happen, but I think your downplaying the effect it would have on trade. Yes, its too much for a single trader to make an alt network to go hub to hub... but if players can get together and form banks and stock exchanges, do you really think its beyond possibility a corp could get together and form a jump bridge network and charge traders to use it? A medium sized corp with alts all Cyno V capable would do the trick. Just charge for fuel + a fee to use the bridge. You'd make billions.
So, I'd love to see it, but I think you need some type of assurance we won't see traders using this to neigh-instantly get from one hub to another.
|
Kasi Kasai
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 17:26:00 -
[47]
|
Syringe
R.E.C.O.N.
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 18:28:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Syringe on 26/06/2009 18:29:30
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
First - I think was asked above - wtf are you doing mining during wartime without adequate protection? There's little to no advantage in this scenario, because as it stands, a good gank squad will just throw tacklers into the system and warp in on top of you.
If the cyno alt pops the cyno right on top of you, pop the alt. He's gotta be in WT gang for cyno, so he'll be shootable (set your overview right). If he pops a cyno at a nearby planet or something, you'll see your WTs pop into system just as if they'd come in a gate and you can get your miners out.
Originally by: Becq Starforged
To ensure balance, there would have to be two additional restrictions placed on covert cynos used in high-sec, in my opinion.
The balance is held in that the target corp would effectively be able resume logistics with the same toolset. There's little/no way that with effective cov cyno hopping, you couldn't move your haulers around.
Edit: now with thumbs up. Also - took me 6 tries to post. |
RaveNight
Amarr
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 18:47:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Syringe
Edited by: Syringe on 26/06/2009 18:29:30
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
First - I think was asked above - wtf are you doing mining during wartime without adequate protection? There's little to no advantage in this scenario, because as it stands, a good gank squad will just throw tacklers into the system and warp in on top of you.
If the cyno alt pops the cyno right on top of you, pop the alt. He's gotta be in WT gang for cyno, so he'll be shootable (set your overview right). If he pops a cyno at a nearby planet or something, you'll see your WTs pop into system just as if they'd come in a gate and you can get your miners out.
Originally by: Becq Starforged
To ensure balance, there would have to be two additional restrictions placed on covert cynos used in high-sec, in my opinion.
The balance is held in that the target corp would effectively be able resume logistics with the same toolset. There's little/no way that with effective cov cyno hopping, you couldn't move your haulers around.
Edit: now with thumbs up. Also - took me 6 tries to post.
The alt cyno ship, so long as it has not engaged in any aggressive action towards "you", and has not given direct assistance (repair) to "the wt's", will not be flagged even if in the wt's fleet.
I agree with disagreeing here - But no, the miners (and/or their protection) would not be able to shoot the cyno if he is not, themself, a wartarget (or conditionally flagged to you).
|
Kytanos Termek
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 17:32:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 27/06/2009 17:32:28
Supported. |
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc
Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 21:27:00 -
[51]
|
RRNL
Capital Construction Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 23:14:00 -
[52]
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.06.28 18:12:00 -
[53]
Originally by: TimMc
Would be fun for empire wars
|
Kaiden Exeider
Gallente
Astrowork Systems
Haven Innovations
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 16:24:00 -
[54]
This is very much like my "Commercial" cynos and jumpdrive Idea for the jump freighters, which you can read if you check my sig below.
"Commercial" Cynos and Jumpdrives |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 20:37:00 -
[55]
On one hand, it's pretty much the same as when they changed Cov Cyno's to be usable in cynojammed systems, so there's no reason not to support it. It has nothing to do with the ships themselves, It doesn't change anything about Black Ops at all. All it does is allow the ships to be used in an area where they cannot be utilized currently, just like the change to allow them in cynojammed space allowed their use in sov 0.0 regions with const sov/prevalent cynojammed space.
It allows a subset of players (empire war dec corps) access to a ship class that they currently lack (along with their unique tactics/abilities), and opens up another subset of players (Highsec carebears who get wardec'd) to being victims of a whole new world of griefing/ganking tactics.
On the other hand, do corps who run around decing highsec corps full of carebears/newbies/casuals really need/deserve any new toys? Especially ones which can be utilized to such devastating effect in an environment like empire vs the types of unsuspecting targets that inhabit highsec? Do they really need even more advantages? I mean come on, you're seal clubbing...baby seal clubbing at that. The hardest part of empire wars is finding targets who will undock during a wardec at all, which is why I understand why'd you be interested in adding black ops to your toolbox, they enable so many options and enable you to exploit opportunities for kills that you couldn't accomplish otherwise. But that's kind of the problem.
If they allow Covert Cyno's to be used in highsec space, the first war dec corp that actually uses them properly is going to create so much drama and result in such a massive amount of carebear tears/forum whines to the point that eventually CCP will have to change something, and CCP's method of balancing something is to nerf it and everything associated with it into the stone age. Then on top of that, they also do the simple, minor change like "whoops, ok lets roll that back, you can't use cov cyno's in highsec any more", ya know the thing that would have solved the problem alone, without destroying several entire ship line ups in the process? But by that point you're left with a ship that has 3 highslots, a 1LY jump range with JDC V, that requires 500m3 worth of fuel to jump itself to a "covert" cyno which lasts 5 minutes, now pulses an ECM burst every 20 seconds jamming everyone on grid, can only be lit by Blockade Runners (who can no longer fit a covert ops cloak), which also broadcasts it's location in the local chat of every system in the constellation every 3 seconds to remind everyone what you're doing and where.
Then CCP will say "ok highsec carebears stop crying we fixed it, the bad men can't light covert cyno's in high sec anymore" to which everyone responds "gee thanks, but if you didn't notice, with all the other nerfs, why would anyone ever bother to fly a black ops, or light a covert cyno anywhere, much less in high sec?" which CCP will respond "Well see there you go, why did we waste those man hours implementing these changes when the problem solved itself anyway? We can't justify allocating any more dev/review time on this until winter expansion 2012, and by 2012, we of course mean 2014, which is when we'll actually get around to adding the fuel bay we've been promising we'd add for the last 4 expansions in a row."
The opinions expressed in my posts do represent my corp
--------------------------
NOTR
|
Iwant Urstuff
Amarr
Iwant Urstuff Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.29 23:23:00 -
[56]
I find this highly intriguing, but I think one relevant point has been missed, Drug running. Those Blue and Red pills would be super easy to get into Hi Sec now. Not sure if that should be made easy. I will reserve my option to support or not support until somebody addresses this possible issue.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2009.06.30 14:02:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Mister Xerox on 30/06/2009 14:01:58
Since no capital can use a covert cyno... I don't see why this could not be possible.
|
Amasai
Starfire Oasis
Thalion Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 04:12:00 -
[58]
I was under the impression that drugs, currently, aren't used much because people don't want to deal with the negative affects.
IF this is true then they need a boost, and also they wouldn't sell much in high sec anyway, there by negating potential imbalance issues
WaSaBi |
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 11:33:00 -
[59]
|
Dave Meltdown
Capital Construction Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 12:09:00 -
[60]
|
Borb Mizzet
Black Serpent Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 23:20:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Borb Mizzet on 08/07/2009 23:19:49
I support this, but make it so it can only be used in .8 and below
|
swordmaster125
Ascent of Ages
Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 02:00:00 -
[62]
/signed for the idea in .8 and below only
ive been considering training a widow or sin for ages, i might actually get around to it for once =D
|
smokeydapot
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 07:56:00 -
[63]
I would love to see this idea happen it would add an intresting aspect to the game.
|
Alu Nossie
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 00:08:00 -
[64]
i support the cause
|
Marcus Gideon
The NightClub
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 16:50:00 -
[65]
Anything that brings life back to the Black Ops...
Otherwise they're a rather useless ship, by most opinions. |
Glafri
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 13:23:00 -
[66]
I like it!
|
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 22:02:00 -
[67]
Shame we can't get more PvP oriented people into the CSM instead of carebears...
|
Capt Minor
Amarr
Minority Crusaders
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 14:30:00 -
[68]
Sounds as a nice idea but High sec wont be high sec anylonger. 
All carebears small mining/industrial corps can become easy WT for new Black Ops Exploiting Corp.
Room around the victims area of interest in many different systems at the same time. Hotdrop on the victim. Kill with approval. After taking out a few Freighters some Hulks etc, propose that the victimized Corp pay for protection and you have a sure income.
I have started training up my Black Ops Skills now.
Pirating without getting punished for it. Sure thing.
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
Endemic Aggression
Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 16:08:00 -
[69]
No.
There's already too much hi sec this and that in EvE.
|
Capt Minor
Amarr
Minority Crusaders
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 16:24:00 -
[70]
Around Covert jump hauling. Well not really something that should be a concern. Its so easy to use an hauling alt so the covert stuff wont have any benefit unless if in war or going directly to/from low/0.0 sec. Then its okay anyway. It wont make any impact on trading in general IMO.
BUT you really have to study these pages:
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Military_Tactics#Gate_Camping_Tactics_.28Defensive.29
and in general
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Military_Tactics
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Military_Strategy
and understand that when we circumvent the gates it has an enourmous impact on strategy selection. A point which most ppl in EVE havent realized yet.!!
Every single gate is a pinch and they are always the big issue in any RL warfare and also in EVE.!
Wait until the covert / black ops is more common in PVP in low/0.0 sec. Then probably you wont even think of taking Covert Cyno to high sec.
All the other suggestions made from CSM to make Black Ops a better ship is probably a more approbiate way to raise Black Ops awareness. Also a hughe price cut could could be the way. Its nearly the same as a dread and 2x a carrier.
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 16:31:00 -
[71]
|
smokeydapot
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 21:23:00 -
[72]
Ok on the topic of Tactics First there has to be a ship equiped with a covert ops cyno for the ship to by-pass the gate ( an effective camp will pop said ship in seconds ) so the point of ships by-passing pinch points hear is not a valid.
Offensive Tactics ( for the force with black ops ) well one of the oldest Tactics known the pincer move this could ( if done right ) be a deverstating move on the side of the attacking force stoping the campers retreat through a gate. yes this Tactic could be used already but with little option than to find alt routs ( if any exist ) to perform such a Tactic the black ops is the ship for the job ( after all it is a specialist ship ).
for the above reasons and plenty more i stand by my vote of let the black ops have the ability to cyno jump into high sec systems ( like said else where 0.8 sec systems) would be good.
|
Capt Minor
Amarr
Minority Crusaders
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 21:51:00 -
[73]
Well a covert recon just slip through ALL gate camps. Its what I do today in my blokade runner and in my recons and covert ops. You just fit a covert cyno on a cloaked covert and call in the rest of the covert gang including the Black Ops.
Covert and Black Ops do circumvent all gate camping. Thats their special ability.
Besides the ship lighting the covert cyno can be an alt thats just joining the fleet.!
NO.
Let Black Ops get popular in PVP in 0.0 and then lets talk again. Just because its not have been popular in 0.0. I think its wrong to try to get this going by taking it to high sec. Let do it in 0.0 first.! ANd by alll means lets use it for popping pirates in low sec. 
When the tide has turned and CCP has made the needed change to Black Ops it will find it niche use.
Btw. In fact a Redeemer has the exact same DPS as a an Apoc.! Range is just shorter.
|
smokeydapot
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 22:09:00 -
[74]
Edited by: smokeydapot on 16/07/2009 22:15:24
You are limiting the ability of this ship to just PVP and this is a bit one track what about faction war's or even just corp wars in high sec systems ( yes the mentioned have PVP aspects but its not just PVP combat ) PVP is not the be all and end all of this game just the role you may want to play ( this could realy make faction war's intresting ).
Effective camps in high sec you mean you dont know already well im not guna give you hints on that front 
at the end of the day the ship needs to be used more ( at least thats what im hearing ) and changing the abilities like with high sec cyno's would add a new lease of life to the ship and im all for that.
yes i know there are many many aspects in EVE you have to do in low sec / 0.0 my question was why like what was said at the begining of the thread " 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? ".
My vote is still yes to this idea my opinion has been posted and my mind made up.
|
Felix Mibaz
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 02:14:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
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.
This.
|
fuze
Chosen Path
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 10:21:00 -
[76]
Don't think time/investment in smuggling drugs would make it interesting enough.
Hauling from/to low-sec POS with blockade runners might.
|
Zionner
|
Posted - 2009.07.17 16:51:00 -
[77]
I like!
|
Iwant Urstuff
Amarr
Iwant Urstuff Corp
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 14:12:00 -
[78]
Hrmmm, well one response on drug issue, although the response they aren't used much really begs the issue of why there is a video on youtube about drug running tens of billions worth of drugs into Jita, complete with much dying by the customs officials. I see some others are aware of the trade issues this raises and while I am not the fondest supporter of the pirates in EVE they do make travel in hi sec interesting. I think the covert cynos would ensure easy movement of say Titan BPOs and a host of other items. A covert cyno does not show up on the system overview. On the whole I think this is something that should not be added to hi sec.
|
MuffinsRevenger
EmpiresMod
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 17:02:00 -
[79]
Been yelling about this before, still think it would be kickass to have, DO EEET. |
Twilight Magester
Foundation
Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 07:53:00 -
[80]
Sounds good.
|
DaKoo
UK1 Zero
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 13:58:00 -
[81]
Edited by: DaKoo on 01/08/2009 13:58:33
|
Reisenkaze
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 23:32:00 -
[82]
I'm all for this.
As far as the outlaw issue, why not have a system that removes the ability to if your sec goes into outlaw status, and this be considered a privilege by CONCORD rather than a right?
|
w1ndstrike
|
Posted - 2009.08.01 23:41:00 -
[83]
Edited by: w1ndstrike on 01/08/2009 23:48:21
Edited by: w1ndstrike on 01/08/2009 23:47:22
the only thing that comes to mind is if T3 ships with a covert reconfiguration subsystem can be cyno'd by a blackops ship. even so any wartarget will have some kind of warning (local much?)
I can't see trade being significantly impacted because of the fuel cost associated with moving such a small amount of cargo. anything giving returns at that rate probably already has stability issues.
as for the lowsec entry being an issue, all it does is reduce the exposure of a well organized operation to opportunistic PvP, which is the reward from being organized in the first place (give effort, get rewarded for actually putting in the effort) I know there are going to be some pirates that are unhappy about this, and here is your solution: pop the fuel carrier for the pos that is getting stuff out that way. or simply wardec the empire corp and probe down the cyno vessel while its in the middle of a cycle, then clean up the hauler as it comes through.
*edit*
a couple of things I forgot to add:
one thing that has been said over and over again, is that highsec isn't "safe space" its "safer space" this motion would highlight that nicely, and add more possibilities of play to those that live in highsec. (and not just the carebears at that)
also it would give blackops some kind of usefulness beyond 0.0 pvp operations, which it badly needs. solves that gripe without a nerf or a buff.
|
Carniflex
Fallout Research
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 08:14:00 -
[84]
|
Hester Shaw
|
Posted - 2009.08.10 15:54:00 -
[85]
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |