Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
This post is about cyno travel, and the ability to cyno directly from one station to another:
Let's review the risks of cyno travel: a.) You undock and wait out a 10 seconds session change timer while completely invulnerable (even to bumping). If you are bubbled, you can safely dock.
b.) After the session change timer expires, you can right click on your ship and cyno directly to another location while still completely untargetable because of the undock invulnerability.
c.) Assuming your destination is a station, which 99% of the time it is, you cyno into dock range, and have to survive a whole 10 second session change timer before you can dock. With 300+k EHP and eyes on grid before you cyno in, pragmatically, there is NO RISK to any jump capable ship!!
So, my question: Is riskless travel like this appropriate for EvE???
Note: Some might claim you are risking the cyno ship, so it's not riskless travel. However, since I can create a cyno alt that uses a noobship to light my cyno, I do NOT consider this a viable risk...
P.S. This GD thread is to discuss whether this form of travel is reasonable in EvE's "dangerous" areas. If you have ideas on how to change the mechanics, or what not, please post the idea in F&I.
This is how I'd solve it: Prevent Cynoing a ship into Dock Range of a Station. There are other ideas too: Nerf JF's and other ideas |
ElQuirko
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
810
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11911041
/thread CISPA - Readin' your secret corptheft mails since 2012 |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeah things need tweaking since the session timer changes.
Won't happen though. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
ElQuirko wrote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11911041
/thread
A carrier km hardly means cyno travel is risky....
Ratting in a carrier... Risky Cynoing a carrier to a POS.... Risky.... Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
|
Kyle Ward
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
I too, wish CCP would make all the JF's cyno directly into my fleet of Tornado's... Poastin with my main while I AFK cloak in your system. |
baltec1
1552
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
We have managed to kill a good few. |
March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
hm.... some time ago someone said "suiciding hulks in empire and loosing ship to concord is a risk". What is the difference? |
Ephenos
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Yes it is reasonable.
How would you manage to change this to have no risk without massive gameplay changes? Extended jump drive spoolup times? Might make nullsec logistics slower, but not really much more dangerous. Unable to dock for a certain amount of time after jumping? Still relatively ineffective unless it was something ridiculous like 5 minutes, as most caps jump to friendly stations.
And why should it be inherently dangerous? Much of the appeal of capital ships lays in their ability to jump from point A to point B without having to stop in between.
So without someway to drag them down in the middle of jump (whut?) The only points of vulnerability are start and endpoints,a and there is only so much you can do there without needing a nerfbat studded in nails and covered in dynamite.
Just my 2 cents worth, I see no reason to change the current system, unless you wanted a reversion to a 30 second session change timer, which still wouldn't do much
Edit: saw your idea's on nerfing being bale to jump within dock range. See your point, but cant really say I agree with them, to easy to shut down a massive area of jump logistics with a relatively low number of ships. |
Kieron VonDeux
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Just remove cynos from the game and have all caps jump within 1-2 AU of star and Super Caps 10-20 AU of star. No moar hot-drop-oclocks.
Or simply remove all jump drives. |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks?
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
We have managed to kill a good few.
Please enlighten us, I really don't see how a competent carrier pilot loses their carrier when cynoing from one station to another station.
With a 10 second session change timer, you have to average 30+k dps to gank a JF before it can dock, or 50-100k dps to gank a carrier/dread/rorqual.
Are there tricks? The web-bump trick that is deemed an exploit... or you could cyno in a bunch of ships on top of it, hoping to bump it out of dock range... or You could have ships on grid, and try to bump it out of dock range before it can dock... or you can have a titan or fleet of SC's on grid ready to gank it the moment it cyno's in.
I consider the above risks extremely minimal to a competent player, although I'm sure they'll net you some kills the first time they encounter such tactics. Given the capital docking radius of stations, bumping it out of range within 10 s requires lots of luck. A cloaked ongrid titan is a legit risk, albeit a very uncommon one!!
Is there a tactic I'm unaware of, that makes cynoing from station to station even a little risky??? |
Pyramid Scheme
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
somebody should stationcamp this guy. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
377
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks?
Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free.
As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free.
I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel.... |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel....
Caught in bubbles in low-sec?
And lol at your transparent attempt to justify this. Face it, you aren't capable of PvP, or you wouldn't be worried about getting enough carrrier kills....
Looking to stamp out apiphobia in my lifetime..... |
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
Why should it be so risky to fly from friendly station to friendly station while not entering combat, AND paying attention to your surroundings, waiting for safer times to travel? The time and manpower investment required to set up such a situation where one can expect reasonable safety is while jumping capital ships is immense. Capitals are already prenerfed in a lot of situations where people would like to use them. Remember when you could actually carry a nice amount of stuff in a carrier? Should sleeper's spawn everytime a cyno is lit? Should carriers have a retardedly long session timer, just so they are less useful? They get their share of combat, and die all the time. They are not some invincible ship class. In fact, they are far from it. People just don't risk them as much as other less useful ships.
Also, what is this web bump trick that you speak of? If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Mikelii
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
Qolde wrote: Also, what is this web bump trick that you speak of?
There was an exploit you could use, with the properly fitted ship, to web a larger ship as it undocked. If the webs were powerful enough, it would get stuck entering warp. You couldn't stop warp, or redock the ship. So you basically sat there at 0 speed until you died. :CCP: coding at its finest.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:46:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ephenos wrote:Yes it is reasonable.
How would you manage to change this to have no risk without massive gameplay changes? Extended jump drive spoolup times? Might make nullsec logistics slower, but not really much more dangerous. Unable to dock for a certain amount of time after jumping? Still relatively ineffective unless it was something ridiculous like 5 minutes, as most caps jump to friendly stations.
Edit: saw your idea's on nerfing being bale to jump within dock range. See your point, but cant really say I agree with them, to easy to shut down a massive area of jump logistics with a relatively low number of ships.
Would it be that easy to shut down?? Cyno into a safe spot, or a random good distance from a POS and web to warp whatever you bring in.... I think my F&I change would increase the risk to a reasonable, yet manageable level.... At least, that's what I strive for!
Ephenos wrote: And why should it be inherently dangerous? Much of the appeal of capital ships lays in their ability to jump from point A to point B without having to stop in between.
Most of the activites in EvE are NOT risk free... we make decisions to mitigate risks. And I think any mechanic that allows us to completely mitigate risks is a bad mechanic... As for cyno travel, which is an explicitly nullsec/lowsec activity, having it be completely risk free is contrary to the purpose of lowsec/nullsec. |
Ephenos
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel....
How far away would we be talking here? 1km 5? 10? Would be ok with carriers, they can likely survive long enough to call help. But JF logistics would be extremely risky, I'd suicide an entire 20 man bomber gang onto a JF in order to kill it, wouldn't you?
20 bombers can nuke even a high skilled JF in less time than it takes to scream in coms or chat and have people undock.
and even then they can likely kill it before they all die, any decent bomber pilot will do 500+ dps overheated, and why not heat if your suiciding?
Just don't think cynoing far off stations is the way to go.
(Just remove cynos from the game and have all caps jump within 1-2 AU of star and Super Caps 10-20 AU of star.) Now this guys one is interesting. Potentially viable unless on jumping in some "Here I am" beacon was created. That would completely kill nullsec travel. couple of titans, some SC's, and a few cynoalt could interdict all travel in jump range.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub Like I Give A F--K
1362
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:49:00 -
[19] - Quote
Qolde wrote:Why should it be so risky to fly from friendly station to friendly station while not entering combat, AND paying attention to your surroundings, waiting for safer times to travel? The time and manpower investment required to set up such a situation where one can expect reasonable safety is while jumping capital ships is immense. Capitals are already prenerfed in a lot of situations where people would like to use them. Remember when you could actually carry a nice amount of stuff in a carrier? Should sleeper's spawn everytime a cyno is lit? Should carriers have a retardedly long session timer, just so they are less useful? They get their share of combat, and die all the time. They are not some invincible ship class. In fact, they are far from it. People just don't risk them as much as other less useful ships.
Also, what is this web bump trick that you speak of? lmfao, yeah it took me ages to train three cyno alts on my three accounts, and boy... That ten second timer?! The risk involved in moving my carriers / JFs around is immense.
I'm still not sold on blocking cynos on station though, I like hot dropping idiots who aggress in carriers on the undock too much. Maybe if it came along side a change to aggression timers based on mass.
I also think it would just result in people finding empty systems to cyno in to, or setting up a POS in every system along route.
*EDIT: I forgot to add, you claim friendly station to friendly station. Outside of sov null sec current mechanics make it trivial to cyno right into hostile stations without risk. Or travel right through the most heavily camped places in the game without breaking up the camp.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ephenos wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel.... How far away would we be talking here? 1km 5? 10? Would be ok with carriers, they can likely survive long enough to call help. But JF logistics would be extremely risky, I'd suicide an entire 20 man bomber gang onto a JF in order to kill it, wouldn't you? 20 bombers can nuke even a high skilled JF in less time than it takes to scream in coms or chat and have people undock. and even then they can likely kill it before they all die, any decent bomber pilot will do 500+ dps overheated, and why not heat if your suiciding? Just don't think cynoing far off stations is the way to go. (Just remove cynos from the game and have all caps jump within 1-2 AU of star and Super Caps 10-20 AU of star.) Now this guys one is interesting. Potentially viable unless on jumping in some "Here I am" beacon was created. That would completely kill nullsec travel. couple of titans, some SC's, and a few cynoalt could interdict all travel in jump range.
I was thinking 5-10 km's.... and lets be frank... peopel would NOT cyno in a JF 5 km's off a station... they would start cynoing them in a safe spot and web-to-warp them to a station, or they would cyno them in under the protection of a POS (although POS protection is not all that good). They would still be able to mitigate most risks, but they WOULD have risk... Pos protection is not impenetrable, safe spots can be busted, bubbles can be used to trap ships warping to any destination in nullsec... I'm not trying to make cyno logistics impossible or unreasonable risky, but I firmly believe there should be SOME risk!!! |
|
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
52
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Even if it were changed, it would just change how caps are flown. The people always find a way. Instead of cynoing right on the station, people would just have to find empty systems (not hard) and cyno to safes, kill the cyno ship, jettison a new one from the SMB, warp to a non cyno tainted safe, and cloak up. The amount of damage needed to kill a carrier from the 30 second session timer days was similar to the amount of time it would take to kill your own cyno in a safe spot and warp to another safe to cloak. Sure, you'd have to have more bookmarks and it would take a little more time. But it wouldn't get anymore caps killed.
[Nidhoggur, Safety First] Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Target Painter II Target Painter II
Improved Cloaking Device II Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I
Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II
Garde II x13
If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Lady Ayeipsia
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
257
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 17:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Claim sov, put up a cyno jammers, problem solved. Or... Lure the offending ship into a hotdrop ambush. Eve is hatd, thete should be no easy carrier killmail I win botton. Figure out a way or find other targets. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:01:00 -
[23] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky. Perhaps we should do away with warp to 0 and cloaks? Traveling gate-to-gate in a pod is an easy way to die... one Disko ship and you're going to wake up in a clone facility. It's not risk free. As for cloaks.... Cloakers mitigate most risks to their ships with cloaks, and I think cyno's should mitigate most risks by traveling from point A to Point Z bypassing the risks in between. At the same point in time, a cloaker is still at risk of getting decloaked, it can be caught in bubbles, and it can't cloak next to a station, and traveling in a cloak ship is far from risk free. I think a small nerf to cyno's can have the same effect.... Just prevent cynoing a ship within dock range of a station, and suddenly there is a reasonable risk to cyno travel.... Caught in bubbles in low-sec? And lol at your transparent attempt to justify this. Face it, you aren't capable of PvP, or you wouldn't be worried about getting enough carrrier kills....
Forgive me, I'm a PvP Noob!!!. WHen you boast a better PvP record than I, you're transparent troll jabs might bring a tear to my eye....
My point was warping in a POD has risks, and using a cloak to travel, even in lowsec, has risks. They are what I'd deam reasonable risks. And I think cyno travel should also have reasonable risks... |
Ephenos
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:06:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Claim sov, put up a cyno jammers, problem solved. Or... Lure the offending ship into a hotdrop ambush. Eve is hatd, thete should be no easy carrier killmail I win botton. Figure out a way or find other targets.
What...exactly is this supposed to solve?
Hey, Cynojammer is up, now nobody can hotdrop me when I cyno in...ah wait a minute.
Now I can't cyno in either. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
Qolde wrote:Even if it were changed, it would just change how caps are flown. The people always find a way. Instead of cynoing right on the station, people would just have to find empty systems (not hard) and cyno to safes, kill the cyno ship, jettison a new one from the SMB, warp to a non cyno tainted safe, and cloak up. The amount of damage needed to kill a carrier from the 30 second session timer days was similar to the amount of time it would take to kill your own cyno in a safe spot and warp to another safe to cloak. Sure, you'd have to have more bookmarks and it would take a little more time. But it wouldn't get anymore caps killed.
[Nidhoggur, Safety First] Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Inertia Stabilizers II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Target Painter II Target Painter II
Improved Cloaking Device II Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I Drone Control Unit I
Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II Large Targeting Systems Stabilizer II
Garde II x13
I would approach it a littel differently to keep my capitals safe, but that's besides the point. The point is, suddenly you actually have to think about the risks to your cynoing ship, as they can't travel risk free anymore.... I don't want to prevent people from being able to mitigate the risks of cyno travel, I jsut want there to be risks that should be mitigated!!!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:13:00 -
[26] - Quote
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:Claim sov, put up a cyno jammers, problem solved. Or... Lure the offending ship into a hotdrop ambush. Eve is hatd, thete should be no easy carrier killmail I win botton. Figure out a way or find other targets.
Your post makes little to no sense....
If you cyno jam a system, you can't cyno in any ships.... Also, I'm not asking for easy carrier killmails... . I didn't say you can only cyno in at some unprotected, predetermined, easy-to-camp location. I'm asking for there to actually be a risk to cyno travel!!!
I also understand why peopel don't want to have risk associated with moving their expensive capital ships.... but really, why should cyno travel be riskless? Travel fit a carrier, combat fit a carrier, logistics fit a carrier.... these choices are irrelevent when moving a capital in today's eve because when cynoing from station to station, there are NO pragmatic risks....
|
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
I'll have to admit, in lowsec it is kind of easy. I remember being wardecced by a triboxer who sat on our station with 2 carriers and a vulture. This was in the 30 second timer days, and it was annoying that he always had enough time to deaggress and dock let alone wait out a 30 second session timer. Mass based aggression timers would be nice for use against those who use crappy dock mechanics during a battle they volunteered for. Making it too easy to kill travelling carriers would be lame. If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub Like I Give A F--K
1363
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Qolde wrote:I'll have to admit, in lowsec it is kind of easy. I remember being wardecced by a triboxer who sat on our station with 2 carriers and a vulture. This was in the 30 second timer days, and it was annoying that he always had enough time to deaggress and dock let alone wait out a 30 second session timer. Mass based aggression timers would be nice for use against those who use crappy dock mechanics during a battle they volunteered for. Making it too easy to kill travelling carriers would be lame. Won't somebody think of the poor jump freighters?
No but seriously, nice post. I wouldn't be opposed to blocking cynos on station if there were variable aggression timers, because it would give you time to hot drop off grid then warp in and kill the carriers.
Although I'd still just fit nothing but webs on my cyno alts' ships, and probably buy nomads for my jf alt too. Jump in, triple web and warp. Dunno what the align time is with nomads and three webs, but I doubt it would be very long.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote: I'm still not sold on blocking cynos on station though, I like hot dropping idiots who aggress in carriers on the undock too much. Maybe if it came along side a change to aggression timers based on mass.
I also think it would just result in people finding empty systems to cyno in to, or setting up a POS in every system along route.
*EDIT: I forgot to add, you claim friendly station to friendly station. Outside of sov null sec current mechanics make it trivial to cyno right into hostile stations without risk. Or travel right through the most heavily camped places in the game without breaking up the camp.
I don't want to remove hotdropping idiot carrier pilots that agress on the undock.... I would just prevent the hotdropped ships from landing at zero on the station.... I know dock ranges for capitals are now HUGE, and I would hope, in practice, a cyno alteration would result in the hotdrop landing ~5km's from the station docking perimeter, which hopefully is no farther than 20-30 km's from the idiotic carrier pilot.... In short, I certainly don't want to remove the risks to people agressing on station (nor prevent it)....
Imagine the added risks to the hotdroppers if they bring in capital ships outside of dock range... It could escalate quite nicely!!!
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
178
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:37:00 -
[30] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:hm.... some time ago someone said "suiciding hulks in empire and loosing ship to concord is a risk". What is the difference?
its not, its a business expense. If you had a chance to escape there would be risk as youd have a chance to lose it, not a certainty of losing it.
risk noun 1. exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance:
If theres is no CHANCE there is no RISK
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1117
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:38:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Imagine the added risks to the hotdroppers if they bring in capital ships outside of dock range... It could escalate quite nicely!!! As long as a couple of titans can driveby doomsday them and :frogout:.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Shameless Avenger
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:41:00 -
[32] - Quote
I thought this was about the Uninterdictable Tengu Fit... I leave disappointed. |
Innywuhne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 19:07:00 -
[33] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:*shoots self in logistics foot* Gizz, what does the Agony logistical chain have to say about this incredibly bad idea? Should JF pilots have to jump through even more hoops to play this ******* game that already turns even the simplest things into gigantic pains in the ass? I don't see your lazy ass leaving the rats behind to perform overwatch every time something needs to get brought to the station. For the professional couriers, this would be the end of their corp, as it is impossible to recruit escort pilots on the scale necessary to protect 30+ jump freighter pilots in every corner of EVE. Did you even give that some thought? These corps are opening up losec and nosec to players who would never have the ability to do it themselves. Nosec/losec gets more targets overall than your foolish desire to add more JFs to your killboard.
I'd like to see you or other Agony pilots, in the interest of fairness and sportsmanship and whatever the ****, intentionally light cynos 10k+ off station. I know you're not doing it now. In fact, I triple dog dare your corp to begin doing it. Perhaps I should give this list of Agony JF pilots (incorp and out) and cynos (incorp and out) to someone who can put it to good use. |
baltec1
1552
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 19:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:baltec1 wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
We have managed to kill a good few. Please enlighten us, I really don't see how a competent carrier pilot loses their carrier when cynoing from one station to another station.
Thats the trick. Do you have any idea just how many incompetent capital pilots there are out there? |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub Like I Give A F--K
1364
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 19:36:00 -
[35] - Quote
Innywuhne wrote:Gizz, what does the Agony logistical chain have to say about this incredibly bad idea? Should JF pilots have to jump through even more hoops to play this ******* game that already turns even the simplest things into gigantic pains in the ass? I don't see your lazy ass leaving the rats behind to perform overwatch every time something needs to get brought to the station. For the professional couriers, this would be the end of their corp, as it is impossible to recruit escort pilots on the scale necessary to protect 30+ jump freighter pilots in every corner of EVE. Did you even give that some thought? These corps are opening up losec and nosec to players who would never have the ability to do it themselves. Nosec/losec gets more targets overall than your foolish desire to add more JFs to your killboard.
I'd like to see you or other Agony pilots, in the interest of fairness and sportsmanship and whatever the ****, intentionally light cynos 10k+ off station. I know you're not doing it now. In fact, I triple dog dare your corp to begin doing it. Perhaps I should give this list of Agony JF pilots (incorp and out) and cynos (incorp and out) to someone who can put it to good use. As a JF and carrier pilot myself I can honestly say JFs make life too easy. I've also used carriers quite a bit for moving ships for deployments, which with a properly set up cyno chain are just as bad.
Our wish to nerf them is also not purely due to some desire to pad our KBs, I fly solo in low sec in a ship that can't even tank gate guns so my proposed nerf wouldn't allow me to kill JFs anyway. Especially not with the way I proposed to alter them.
As for your belief that all the suggestions put forward are aimed at making pilots blindly cyno in and slow boat 10km to station... just read the thread before posting.
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I don't want to remove hotdropping idiot carrier pilots that agress on the undock.... I would just prevent the hotdropped ships from landing at zero on the station.... I know dock ranges for capitals are now HUGE, and I would hope, in practice, a cyno alteration would result in the hotdrop landing ~5km's from the station docking perimeter, which hopefully is no farther than 20-30 km's from the idiotic carrier pilot.... In short, I certainly don't want to remove the risks to people agressing on station (nor prevent it).... Yeah, the issue is with the undock size of some stations. I'm in caldari space at the moment, and the undock on my home station is huge, cynoing in 5km away from undock would put me well out of point/neut range. Even with officer point.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Mongo Edwards
Sarz'na Khumatari
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 20:30:00 -
[36] - Quote
Every time you jump a capital you take a risk. Assuming you aren't using your own alt, you trust that the cyno pilot knows what they are doing (always questonable) and aren't too close or too far from the station ( caldari stations are easy mode in that regard). If jumping with other capitals you do occasionally have problems with them landing on top of eachother and bumping off station. So yeah I guess if you play by yourself you can be reasonably sure of safeish travel but I would venture most people play with others in which case jumping does have risks. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
326
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 20:46:00 -
[37] - Quote
Question is, how much fun it is to jump 50 gates with ZZzzzzzzZZZZzzzzzz freighters and escort?
brb |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
380
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 20:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Innywuhne wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:*shoots self in logistics foot* Gizz, what does the Agony logistical chain have to say about this incredibly bad idea? Should JF pilots have to jump through even more hoops to play this ******* game that already turns even the simplest things into gigantic pains in the ass? I don't see your lazy ass leaving the rats behind to perform overwatch every time something needs to get brought to the station. For the professional couriers, this would be the end of their corp, as it is impossible to recruit escort pilots on the scale necessary to protect 30+ jump freighter pilots in every corner of EVE. Did you even give that some thought? These corps are opening up losec and nosec to players who would never have the ability to do it themselves. Nosec/losec gets more targets overall than your foolish desire to add more JFs to your killboard. I'd like to see you or other Agony pilots, in the interest of fairness and sportsmanship and whatever the ****, intentionally light cynos 10k+ off station. I know you're not doing it now. In fact, I triple dog dare your corp to begin doing it. Perhaps I should give this list of Agony JF pilots (incorp and out) and cynos (incorp and out) to someone who can put it to good use.
Seriously, why is the idea "incredibly bad"? Would this make life more difficult for Black frog and other logistics groups... certainly... If you think this adds too much risk, meaning these logistics corps would go out of business rather than deal with the risks, I can see it becomong problematic!! But don't blow it out of proportion. I do NOT expect logistics pilots to cyno in 10 km's off station and "slowboat" to the dock perimeter... Only a complete moron or an oblivious pilot with an overconfident sense of safety would ever do that... With this change, other than hotdrops, you would rarely see cyno's lit within 150 km's of a station! People would regularly light cyno's randomly somewhere in space, quickly cyno in, and web-to-warp their ship to station....
As for agony logistics pilots, in general they like this idea as much as most of EvE's logistics pilots... They enjoy the comforts of cynoing directly into dock range of a station, and they don't want to give that up... and who can blame them... Think about it: If you're a person living off unemployment for an extended period of time, and someone recommended limiting unemployment to 6 months rather than X years, do you think you'd immediately jump on board???? Of course not!!! If you're enjoy the benefits of the mechanics, and don't want to give it up no matter how sound the reasoning is!!
And here's the hard Truth: The current cyno mechanics create risk free travel in the most "dangerous" regions of EvE... and so I ask the question:
Should risk-free travel really be the norm for jump mechanics??? Is that reasonable in EvE's lowsec and nullsec regions?
If you ask 10 nullsec residents whether risk free travel through nullsec is reasonable and healthy for the game, most of them would tell you NO (until they realize you're suggesting they put their caps at risk!).
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
380
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 20:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Mongo Edwards wrote:Every time you jump a capital you take a risk. Assuming you aren't using your own alt, you trust that the cyno pilot knows what they are doing (always questonable) and aren't too close or too far from the station ( caldari stations are easy mode in that regard). If jumping with other capitals you do occasionally have problems with them landing on top of eachother and bumping off station. So yeah I guess if you play by yourself you can be reasonably sure of safeish travel but I would venture most people play with others in which case jumping does have risks.
With the current 10 second session change timer, bumping is MUCH less of an issue. I've bumped off other capitals plenty of times and am still easily within docking range by the time my session change timer ends.
It is possible to get a really nasty bump that takes you out of docking range, but with the enhanced capital docking radius and the shortened session change timer, it's a very rare occurance. Also, many corps now make "cyno spots" for the entire corp to use, thereby decreasing the danger of bad cyno locations even further... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
380
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 20:53:00 -
[40] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Question is, how much fun it is to jump 50 gates with ZZzzzzzzZZZZzzzzzz freighters and escort?
I'm not advocation the removal of jump mechanics, I'm just think cyno's should be modified such they are a little more risky.... the best compromise I can think of involves preventing a ship from materializing within dock range of a station!
|
|
Lilliana Stelles
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 21:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Would you seriously use a jump freighter if it didn't offer any advantage for the cost? The thing about cyno-capable ships is that they're expensive. The parts are expensive, they're unusable in high-sec (so you're not avoiding war decs), and you pay a ton for fuel. Their only advantage is safety.
Eve may be a 100% PVP environment, but it's also an economic simulator. Risk vs. rewards, and risk vs. cost come into play heavily with any sort of transportation. While nothing can be 100% safe, anything can be 99.9% safe if you're willing to pay for it.
Edit:
If you're asking for balance, cynos should be made more expensive, not more risky. |
SmilingVagrant
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
473
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 21:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:ElQuirko wrote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11911041
/thread A carrier km hardly means cyno travel is risky.... Ratting in a carrier... Risky Cynoing a carrier to a POS.... Risky.... Cynoing a carrier onto a station.... Not Risky....
Depends on the station actually. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1366
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 21:29:00 -
[43] - Quote
No more or less appropriate then it is for highsec |
Russell Casey
Goldbug Inc.
166
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 21:33:00 -
[44] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:I can fly thru low-sec risk free in a pod, or cloaky.
instalock HAC/smartbombing BS say hi. |
Tarsus Zateki
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
604
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 21:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
Given that we continue to successfully kill Jump Freighters jumping into close proximity with stations I don't see what the problem is. Perhaps you should get better at Eve-Online if you're unhappy that Jump Freighters aren't willingly committing suicide against your gank fleets. You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
380
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 21:58:00 -
[46] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Would you seriously use a jump freighter if it didn't offer any advantage for the cost? The thing about cyno-capable ships is that they're expensive. The parts are expensive, they're unusable in high-sec (so you're not avoiding war decs), and you pay a ton for fuel. Their only advantage is safety.
Eve may be a 100% PVP environment, but it's also an economic simulator. Risk vs. rewards, and risk vs. cost come into play heavily with any sort of transportation. While nothing can be 100% safe, anything can be 99.9% safe if you're willing to pay for it.
Edit:
If you're asking for balance, cynos should be made more expensive, not more risky.
Are you suggesting that the insta-travel across many, many systems itself isn't benefit enough to use a capital cyno travel, and that they need to be able to jump directly into the dock range of a station to be worthwhile? Because I really don't think this is true!!!
Also, increasing the cost of a cyno, thereby increasing the cost of jumping might be a more acceptable alternative. Right now, cyno modules on disposable noobships costs less than 3m to replace. This is fairly insignifcant in today's EvE economy. However, if the actual cyno module itself were a 25m isk (IMO not enough) or 50m isk (a decent price) or heaven forbid a 100m isk (over the top, but probably good for the game), then I'd concede that the risk in cyno travel manifests as a risk to the cyno ship, which is no longer trivial.
It's really a balance I seek.... Currently the price for traveling from station to station via cyno is a negligilbe 3m isk + fuel per trip (in additon to the x billion for the cyno capable ship).
I'm not convinced increasing the cost of a cyno is ideal, but, depending on the cost of the cyno, it's definitely an option. Something tells me that this may undermine Blackfrog moreso than my recommendation, but perhaps not... |
Tarsus Zateki
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
604
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Actually you're really only upset that you can't freely gank these ships like you can other haulers. You're not content with the number of helpless targets you kill already. You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
380
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tarsus Zateki wrote:Actually you're really only upset that you can't freely gank these ships like you can other haulers. You're not content with the number of helpless targets you kill already.
We could compare PvP records, PewPew motivations, and **** sizes all we want... and I'm confident I can hold my own... That's not what this is about....
The question is: Is it appropriate that cyno travel allows safe travel directly from station to station with pragmatically NO RISK to your ship and no threat of any significant loss????
IMO, it is not... |
Tarsus Zateki
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
604
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:28:00 -
[49] - Quote
Your opinion is wrong.
You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub Like I Give A F--K
1367
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tarsus Zateki wrote:Your opinion is wrong. That sounds like rumour or hate mongering or some such.
Where's ISD Stensson when you need him?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
331
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 23:09:00 -
[51] - Quote
This is a good point.
Without the ability to cyno jam in low sec, JF's can pretty much jump around risk free.
CCP should of stuck with the plan to allow the faction warfare guys to control cyno's in low sec. Yes, some alliances might have gotten angry and come out of null sec to **** with the FW guys, or they could simply negotiate with them. Either way it would have created more depth to gameplay and player interaction.
It's this fear of player reactions and lack of confidence in their ideas that stops CCP from making dramatic changes to existing content like FW and the bounty system. |
Lilliana Stelles
Mindstar Technology Executive Outcomes
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 23:15:00 -
[52] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Also, increasing the cost of a cyno, thereby increasing the cost of jumping might be a more acceptable alternative. Right now, cyno modules on disposable noobships costs less than 3m to replace. This is fairly insignifcant in today's EvE economy. However, if the actual cyno module itself were a 25m isk (IMO not enough) or 50m isk (a decent price) or heaven forbid a 100m isk (over the top, but probably good for the game), then I'd concede that the risk in cyno travel manifests as a risk to the cyno ship, which is no longer trivial.
It's really a balance I seek.... Currently the price for traveling from station to station via cyno is a negligilbe 3m isk + fuel per trip (in additon to the x billion for the cyno capable ship).
I'm not convinced increasing the cost of a cyno is ideal, but, depending on the cost of the cyno, it's definitely an option. Something tells me that this may undermine Blackfrog moreso than my recommendation, but perhaps not...
I agree with this as a feasible compromise. After all, unlike the ship using the cyno, the ship lighting it is vulnerable for 5-10 minutes. If the cyno is more valuable, it encourages carriers to stick around and help defend the cyno (giving them an aggression timer), making both the cyno ship and the cap ship more vulnerable. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
383
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 23:50:00 -
[53] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Also, increasing the cost of a cyno, thereby increasing the cost of jumping might be a more acceptable alternative. Right now, cyno modules on disposable noobships costs less than 3m to replace. This is fairly insignifcant in today's EvE economy. However, if the actual cyno module itself were a 25m isk (IMO not enough) or 50m isk (a decent price) or heaven forbid a 100m isk (over the top, but probably good for the game), then I'd concede that the risk in cyno travel manifests as a risk to the cyno ship, which is no longer trivial.
It's really a balance I seek.... Currently the price for traveling from station to station via cyno is a negligilbe 3m isk + fuel per trip (in additon to the x billion for the cyno capable ship).
I'm not convinced increasing the cost of a cyno is ideal, but, depending on the cost of the cyno, it's definitely an option. Something tells me that this may undermine Blackfrog moreso than my recommendation, but perhaps not...
I agree with this as a feasible compromise. After all, unlike the ship using the cyno, the ship lighting it is vulnerable for 5-10 minutes. If the cyno is more valuable, it encourages carriers to stick around and help defend the cyno (giving them an aggression timer), making both the cyno ship and the cap ship more vulnerable.
^^ There's a really subtle brilliance here... With the upcoming crimewatch changes, the carrier could gain aggression just repping a cyno (and the cyno aggresses)...
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3750
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 00:05:00 -
[54] - Quote
its sort of bullshit that jump-capable ships are essentially invulnerable but it's not really fixable without changing a ton of mechanics. |
Mongo Edwards
Sarz'na Khumatari
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 00:12:00 -
[55] - Quote
For most things folks argue that cost isn't a factor for balancing. This case isn't really different. The idea of a spool up timer for jumping that people keep talking about would solve this supposed issue. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
383
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 00:32:00 -
[56] - Quote
Mongo Edwards wrote:For most things folks argue that cost isn't a factor for balancing. This case isn't really different. The idea of a spool up timer for jumping that people keep talking about would solve this supposed issue.
Which spool up timer are you refering too?
I don't think a spoolup timer on the cyno beacon would improve anything to the safe cyno travel dilemma, and instead nerfs hotdrops (which I'm not necessarily against....)
A spoolup timer on the jumping ship, where it is vulnerable to attack during the spoolup and can't immediately redock even if attacked, could allow a neutral to camp a capital into station more easily than I'd like... but it would definitely add risk to the currently riskless cyno travel!!
Most poeple argue that cost isn't an apporpriate factor when determining balance. I agree with this in principle.
Despite that, I still think that increasing the "cost" of the cyno ship is still acceptible. The notion is that the risk of traveling by cyno is transfered from the jumping ship to the cyno ship. If you can light a cyno with a ship that's not worth anything, you essentially mitigate all the risks in traveling by cyno. However, if the ship you're lighting the cyno with is a valuable target, then the risk transference isn't complete risk mitigation, which, IMO, makes it much more acceptable. |
San Severina
Hoplite Brigade
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 00:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Last time I lit a cyno for a new corp member, I waited about 40Minutes in hostile lowsec while he got himself ready, despite being told he was ready to go. lit the cyno & then when the carrier was docked was called a loser for having the cyno slightly outside docking range. Not even a hint of a thank you.
Needless to say, apart from very close friends, of which I have none, I wont be helping out any capital pilots again.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
386
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 15:37:00 -
[58] - Quote
San Severina wrote:Last time I lit a cyno for a new corp member, I waited about 40Minutes in hostile lowsec while he got himself ready, despite being told he was ready to go. lit the cyno & then when the carrier was docked was called a loser for having the cyno slightly outside docking range. Not even a hint of a thank you.
Needless to say, apart from very close friends, of which I have none, I wont be helping out any capital pilots again.
People get tense and ansi when their precious multibillion ships are put at risk... I think that's one of the major reasons people oppose this so much... no one wants even a little bit of risk for their precious.... and I don't fault them for that sentiment. I just think a little bit of risk is appropriate.... |
Marconus Orion
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
131
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 16:15:00 -
[59] - Quote
Tarsus Zateki wrote:Your opinion is wrong. Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Weaselior wrote:its sort of bullshit that jump-capable ships are essentially invulnerable but it's not really fixable without changing a ton of mechanics. Bring on the fixing to a ton of mechanics I say. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
183
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 16:24:00 -
[60] - Quote
Fix please :) If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1833
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:08:00 -
[61] - Quote
I'd suggest a cooldown timer between jumping and docking. The message would say something like "The docking manager has refused your request due to the hazard cynosaural residue around your ship.it will dissipate to safe levels in XX seconds" or something like that. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:13:00 -
[62] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I'd suggest a cooldown timer between jumping and docking. The message would say something like "The docking manager has refused your request due to the hazard cynosaural residue around your ship.it will dissipate to safe levels in XX seconds" or something like that. it is already present. jump after undock and dock after cyno-jump. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
386
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:23:00 -
[63] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I'd suggest a cooldown timer between jumping and docking. The message would say something like "The docking manager has refused your request due to the hazard cynosaural residue around your ship.it will dissipate to safe levels in XX seconds" or something like that. it is already present. jump after undock and dock after cyno-jump.
I think he meant increasing increasing the cyno session change timer from 10 seconds to 30 or 60 or whatever seconds....
If it was a 60 seconds session change timer after cynoing in, it would not be very hard for an enemy to decloak, tackle you, hotdrop a fleet, and nuke even a well tanked carrier before it could dock... Given an appropriate "session change timer", this could be a nice way to balance the currently risk free travel.... Although where that balance is I'm not so certain of... |
March rabbit
Trojan Trolls Red Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:30:00 -
[64] - Quote
once i was moving stuff from Venal to empire. Was needed to make like 6 jumps to-from. Every time i lighted cyno in 6NJ someone killed my cyno-frigate. Ok. Let's use something fatter. I fit Abaddon with passive armor tank. And....
First time it lights cyno some NPC-noone alliance hot-droped 30+ gang on top of the station. My thanny had no chance to resque that Abaddon......
This is risk and cost of cyno. If you guys don't see any risks and costs you should left your BLUE-SEA and try to do job inside more dangerrous environment? |
Kratisto
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:34:00 -
[65] - Quote
I think part of this game has always encouraged groups, but it has always made a viable path for the soloist to eke out a living in some form or another. In what manner would you propose that a solo player be able to move assets about in eve online, if cynoing to stations was disallowed?
You can mission solo, you can mine solo, you can pvp solo; Marketing, transport, etc etc. Removing the cyno to stations would severely limit the individual player's mobility, and I am not sure thats a good thing. When you first join a new alliance or corporation, youre not going to trust THEM to move your stuff for you; youll just end up as another scam story. While you could argue using some hireling to carry your things, those hirelings will need to have active flleets to move assets places.
Well thats great right? A new enterprise for capsuleers. Hiring 15 guys to move 1 shipment, and possibly pvp as well for the one simple thing, is going to cost more than the average capsuleer is willing to pay.
I see this leading to stagnation. The great part about eve is you always have a great many options. You can always start new somewhere else, you just have to move your stuff. Removing the ease of asset movement restricts players choices, and thats no good. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
386
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:54:00 -
[66] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:once i was moving stuff from Venal to empire. Was needed to make like 6 jumps to-from. Every time i lighted cyno in 6NJ someone killed my cyno-frigate. Ok. Let's use something fatter. I fit Abaddon with passive armor tank. And....
First time it lights cyno some NPC-noone alliance hot-droped 30+ gang on top of the station. My thanny had no chance to resque that Abaddon......
This is risk and cost of cyno. If you guys don't see any risks and costs you should left your BLUE-SEA and try to do job inside more dangerrous environment?
1.) Agony does NAP-fest, we strive shoot everyone!!!!
2.) I'm not sure I understand your point.... Your saying the risk of losing your cyno ship when trying to transport your capital ships signifies a risk to your ship. Most people use noobships or disposable frigates to light their cyno, and consider the cost of said ship part of their fuel costs.... Using an abaddon is very abnormal!! Since then, how often do you use a BS rather than a disposable frigate to light your cynos? Here's my point: People typically don't risk anything of value when cyno traveling.... The cyno mechanics allow them to safely move from station to station with virtually NO RISK to the cynoing ship, and the ships they use to light the cyno are rarely worth a pigs fart... I think, either the mechanics need to change, so your ship doesn't travel completely safely from point A to point B, or the cyno ship needs to be valuable enough that people CARE about losing it (this secondary option I consider fairly acceptable, becuase it means there is risk in the cyno travel process, even if not to the cyno traveling ship).
|
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
101
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:58:00 -
[67] - Quote
I proposed a change to this some time ago.
Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:
Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.
It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:
- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below) - Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?). - Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS) - Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.
The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
386
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 18:01:00 -
[68] - Quote
Kratisto wrote:I think part of this game has always encouraged groups, but it has always made a viable path for the soloist to eke out a living in some form or another. In what manner would you propose that a solo player be able to move assets about in eve online, if cynoing to stations was disallowed?
You can mission solo, you can mine solo, you can pvp solo; Marketing, transport, etc etc. Removing the cyno to stations would severely limit the individual player's mobility, and I am not sure thats a good thing. When you first join a new alliance or corporation, youre not going to trust THEM to move your stuff for you; youll just end up as another scam story. While you could argue using some hireling to carry your things, those hirelings will need to have active flleets to move assets places.
Well thats great right? A new enterprise for capsuleers. Hiring 15 guys to move 1 shipment, and possibly pvp as well for the one simple thing, is going to cost more than the average capsuleer is willing to pay.
I see this leading to stagnation. The great part about eve is you always have a great many options. You can always start new somewhere else, you just have to move your stuff. Removing the ease of asset movement restricts players choices, and thats no good.
Cyno travel requires 2 accounts.... so I'm not certain I'd call it specifically a "solo" activity. Either way, if you can't cyno directly to a station, I'd imagine you'd create a safe spot, light a cyno there, immediately bring in your carrier or JF, and web to warp it to a safe and/or station. This is more risky than just cynoing directly onto a station and waiting out a 10 second session change timer before docking, but it's not an impossible, omg there's no viable way to bring a ship into system without it getting ganked situation! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
386
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 18:18:00 -
[69] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:I proposed a change to this some time ago.
Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:
Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.
It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:
- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below) - Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?). - Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS) - Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.
The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec.
If cyno's were prohibbited from being used too close to a station (like smart bombs), then it would become much more difficult to hotdrop station huggers, becuase the distance you suggested is often well beyond the tackle range of most ships... As such, I'd allow the cyno to be lit as close to a station as they like, but if you light it too close to a station, the ships cynoing in will materialize around the range you suggested. CCP developed a mechanic similar to prevent ships cynoing directly into the POS shields of POS's.
This has several benefits: 1.) The cyno ship can hold tackle while lighting the cyno. 2.) The hotdrop is slightly less effective, as the dropped ships may be too far to provide additional tackle. 3.) The hotdropped ships are more at risk, becuase they are out of dock range... which very significant if they are hotdropping capitals!!! |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1834
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 18:41:00 -
[70] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone. So much for hot-dropping blaster ships. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
|
Kratisto
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 19:50:00 -
[71] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cyno travel requires 2 accounts.... so I'm not certain I'd call it specifically a "solo" activity. Either way, if you can't cyno directly to a station, I'd imagine you'd create a safe spot, light a cyno there, immediately bring in your carrier or JF, and web to warp it to a safe and/or station. This is more risky than just cynoing directly onto a station and waiting out a 10 second session change timer before docking, but it's not an impossible, omg there's no viable way to bring a ship into system without it getting ganked situation!
That method is ******** if there are neuts in system undocked and active. all it takes is 1 frigate to hold you down for 10 seconds, and the rest of the gang is there. Would you do that if there are 7 hostiles perma camping the highsec ingate? risking a 1-5b+ isk ship on a wager that they arent paying attention is not going to fly with me, nor with many. And yes, 2 accounts is very common for many in eve; hell you probably have at least that.
The only safe way to transport ships would be to have 3+ instacanes sitting on a cyno +scouts in neighboring systems, and that is a scale of operation that takes more organization or isk than the average person is willing to pay. The webbing requires knowing what you are doing to boot; if you just web the ship too early, you've just ****** yourself. Travel should not be a giant pain in eve online. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
386
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:41:00 -
[72] - Quote
Kratisto wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Cyno travel requires 2 accounts.... so I'm not certain I'd call it specifically a "solo" activity. Either way, if you can't cyno directly to a station, I'd imagine you'd create a safe spot, light a cyno there, immediately bring in your carrier or JF, and web to warp it to a safe and/or station. This is more risky than just cynoing directly onto a station and waiting out a 10 second session change timer before docking, but it's not an impossible, omg there's no viable way to bring a ship into system without it getting ganked situation!
That method is ******** if there are neuts in system undocked and active. all it takes is 1 frigate to hold you down for 10 seconds, and the rest of the gang is there. Would you do that if there are 7 hostiles perma camping the highsec ingate? risking a 1-5b+ isk ship on a wager that they arent paying attention is not going to fly with me, nor with many. And yes, 2 accounts is very common for many in eve; hell you probably have at least that. The only safe way to transport ships would be to have 3+ instacanes sitting on a cyno +scouts in neighboring systems, and that is a scale of operation that takes more organization or isk than the average person is willing to pay. The webbing requires knowing what you are doing to boot; if you just web the ship too early, you've just ****** yourself. Travel should not be a giant pain in eve online.
Most jump-drive ships with a reasonable fit and reasonable skills can easily reduce their align time to under 30 seconds (under 20 if they get excessive). Web to warp will easily decrease their align time to under 10 seconds (You can reduce it to 2-3s if you use the right ships). Assuming an alert inty/dictor immediately warps to the cyno when it goes up, they'll enter warp about the same time you cyno into system. Unless you're lighting the cyno within a few AU's of the hostiles (which you're smart enough not to), it is very unlikely they will land on grid before your ship is webbed to warp. But it is risky... as waiting too long to jump through the cyno, an incompetent webber, etc.. will give you a very bad day...
Look at the other side though.... why should you be allowed to safely travel to a system camped by hostiles? If there are seven hostiles permacamping the system to limit incoming traffic, is it really fair or appropriate that you can easily bypass them with no risk other than losing a negligible cyno frigate???
Another note, have you thought this could be used to your benefit? One of my favorite tactics I call the cyno bubble trap... I anchor a bubble somewhere in space (ideally beyond scan range), put a disposable cyno ship inside it, position a small gang of cheap ass tackle dessies and gank boats next to it, perhaps a jammer at range.... light the cyno and enjoy the fireworks... Do that a few times, and people won't be instantly warping to your cynos!!
Other options, if you know they are camping a specific gate, block their warpin with a bubble!!! Other options, bring in your ship under POS protection... Other options, you go to a different system.... Other options, crash a decoy ship into them so they are too occupied to come after your capital... Other options, light muliple cyno's....
Sure, much of this requires teamwork and gang mates, but I hardly think my suggestion makes cyno travel unfairly nor unmanageably risky...
|
Russell Casey
Goldbug Inc.
167
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:42:00 -
[73] - Quote
Tarsus Zateki wrote:Actually you're really only upset that you can't freely gank these ships like you can other haulers. You're not content with the number of helpless targets you kill already.
Well.....yeah. |
Kratisto
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
your first 3 options do not apply to JFs, which cannot (in most cases) choose another system, requiring to be 1j out of highsec; posses if youre traveling across the galaxy are impractical, dropping a bubble in lowsec isnt possible. As for crashing a decoy ship, I was talking about -solo- ish players, at any rate a 5m+ sacrifice to keep the gankers interested, And as for lighting multiple cynos.... again trusting your multiple billions of isk to a roll of the dice.
JFs again suffer from a lack of fitting utility. Should a significant part of your eve assets (a JF) rest solely on your ability to properly web after cynoing in? If it does, a lot of people would much rather not take the risk. I can freely admit I mess up 1/10 times, and while I might just be a scrub, that is just far too much. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:27:00 -
[75] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I jsut want there to be risks that should be mitigated!!!!
such as "light a cyno on the station instead of blindjumping to a beacon" a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:27:00 -
[76] - Quote
i mean hey let's just limit cyno travel only to those with a supercapital fleet on standby a rogue goon |
D3F4ULT
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:30:00 -
[77] - Quote
LOL
Cyno-ing is broken to pvp players but don't you fking dare talk about Cloaking. Creator of CCP ZULU - Incarna : Pants Online ( http://youtu.be/AObrlCf3Dcs ) |
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
102
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:35:00 -
[78] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:I proposed a change to this some time ago.
Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:
Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.
It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:
- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below) - Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?). - Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS) - Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.
The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec. If cyno's were prohibbited from being used too close to a station (like smart bombs), then it would become much more difficult to hotdrop station huggers, becuase the distance you suggested is often well beyond the tackle range of most ships... As such, I'd allow the cyno to be lit as close to a station as they like, but if you light it too close to a station, the ships cynoing in will materialize around the range you suggested. CCP developed a mechanic similar to prevent ships cynoing directly into the POS shields of POS's. This has several benefits: 1.) The cyno ship can hold tackle while lighting the cyno. 2.) The hotdrop is slightly less effective, as the dropped ships may be too far to provide additional tackle. 3.) The hotdropped ships are more at risk, becuase they are out of dock range... which very significant if they are hotdropping capitals!!!
Good point, but consider this: you do not need to design a game mechanic that works the same for all your ships.
Take cloaking for example. All ships can equip a cloak, but only a few can really use it to it's full potential (warp cloaked, no targeting delay)
Perhaps it is time to have two cyno modules?
The first one being not very precise, cheap and easy to fit. Mainly used for traveling and/or easy to skill into for your regular cyno alts.
The second one would be much more pvp-oriented and be required for titan bridges/covert bridges. It would be very precise (just like the one we have now) but be more expensive in terms of price and req. skills.
I understand that when creating the cyno mechanic, it is simpler to have one mechanic to rule them all, but in this case cynos are used for two very different things - so sculp them accordingly to their role rather than having a cheap in-between. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
388
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:45:00 -
[79] - Quote
Thor Kerrigan wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Thor Kerrigan wrote:I proposed a change to this some time ago.
Basically the goal was to shift cyno'ing from stations to stations to a more POS to POS chain:
Cyno not allowed within 15 km from the station + 10km radius for the landing zone.
It is still possible to have near-invulnerable cyno travel, however:
- Longer chains are easier for bigger alliances (with more POSes) but also more dangerous (see points below) - Gives a clear vulnerability window (ship align time) which under normal circumstances can only be taken advantage of with proper intel (when?, where?, what?). - Larger alliance logistics are easier to target by rivals, giving a clear target to destroy in order to cripple the chain (the POS) - Shifts the danger towards regular cyno users who conserve a predictable travel sequence away from the casual users with virtually unpredictable cyno habits.
The current mechanic simply keeps the same risk level for the casual cyno and the mega-corp-cyno-chain, especially in lowsec. If cyno's were prohibbited from being used too close to a station (like smart bombs), then it would become much more difficult to hotdrop station huggers, becuase the distance you suggested is often well beyond the tackle range of most ships... As such, I'd allow the cyno to be lit as close to a station as they like, but if you light it too close to a station, the ships cynoing in will materialize around the range you suggested. CCP developed a mechanic similar to prevent ships cynoing directly into the POS shields of POS's. This has several benefits: 1.) The cyno ship can hold tackle while lighting the cyno. 2.) The hotdrop is slightly less effective, as the dropped ships may be too far to provide additional tackle. 3.) The hotdropped ships are more at risk, becuase they are out of dock range... which very significant if they are hotdropping capitals!!! Good point, but consider this: you do not need to design a game mechanic that works the same for all your ships. Take cloaking for example. All ships can equip a cloak, but only a few can really use it to it's full potential (warp cloaked, no targeting delay) Perhaps it is time to have two cyno modules? The first one being not very precise, cheap and easy to fit. Mainly used for traveling and/or easy to skill into for your regular cyno alts. The second one would be much more pvp-oriented and be required for titan bridges/covert bridges. It would be very precise (just like the one we have now) but be more expensive in terms of price and req. skills. I understand that when creating the cyno mechanic, it is simpler to have one mechanic to rule them all, but in this case cynos are used for two very different things - so sculp them accordingly to their role rather than having a cheap in-between.
This idea could have potential too.... one cheap cyno generator really just brings you half-hazardly into system with a few AU of the cyno, and one cyno lands your ships at a very specific location... I'd prefer to just make all cyno's expensive, as a random spawn point will be even MORE safe than cynoing directly onto the station!!! |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
388
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 21:50:00 -
[80] - Quote
Kratisto wrote:your first 3 options do not apply to JFs, which cannot (in most cases) choose another system, requiring to be 1j out of highsec; posses if youre traveling across the galaxy are impractical, dropping a bubble in lowsec isnt possible. As for crashing a decoy ship, I was talking about -solo- ish players, at any rate a 5m+ sacrifice to keep the gankers interested, And as for lighting multiple cynos.... again trusting your multiple billions of isk to a roll of the dice.
JFs again suffer from a lack of fitting utility. Should a significant part of your eve assets (a JF) rest solely on your ability to properly web after cynoing in? If it does, a lot of people would much rather not take the risk. I can freely admit I mess up 1/10 times, and while I might just be a scrub, that is just far too much.
I think you're being purposely difficult... but that's probably becuase this change makes your life purposely difficult...
1.) Any ship with a jump drive is NOT limited to any nullsec system. It might be ideal for you to use a particular system, perhaps because it's the shortest route to jita, or its where you have supplies, or you don't want to do more than cyno jump, but only in a few very rare circumstances are you LIMITED to jumping into your ideal system. If you add one extra Jump, first to a lowtraffic, unpopulated lowsec system (of which there are plenty), suddenly you have many potential systems that could get you safely out to highsec...
2.) I don't deny that this change makes it hard on the solo'ish players that perform logistics to the more dangerous areas of EvE. Do you think its appropriate for logistics to these regions to be easy and risk free???? If it's a "dangerous region", perhaps you should avoid it as a solo-ish logistics player, and leave logistics to those regions to the more organized groups of players that setup POS's for protection, or have allies to protect them, etc...
My suggestion isn't the only potential tool... I think there are several options...
Whatever the fix, I still think risk free travel to the most dangerous areas of EvE is just wrong.... Do you really think that's appropriate?? And if so why??
-- is it because spending billions on a ship means it deserves safe travel?? -- is it because you think logistics can't and won't happen unless the logistics ships are essentially immune to risk??
|
|
Adelphie
Paradox Collective Choke Point
69
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 22:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
I'm lazy and haven't read the majority of the posts in this thread, but it won't stop me throwing in my tuppence.
One thing which I don't think should be viable is jumping before you've sat out your session timer. The situation where you can cyno jump before you can even be target, I hope, is an unintended "feature" which I would like to see changed in the future.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
388
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 22:23:00 -
[82] - Quote
Adelphie wrote:I'm lazy and haven't read the majority of the posts in this thread, but it won't stop me throwing in my tuppence.
One thing which I don't think should be viable is jumping before you've sat out your session timer. The situation where you can cyno jump before you can even be target, I hope, is an unintended "feature" which I would like to see changed in the future.
The session change timer exists so all the right databases and system environments get loaded before you change it all up again by jumping, docking, or what not...
The undock invulnerability timer is 30 seconds, which is the same length of time as the old session change timer. When they changed EvE's innards to be more efficient, they reduced the session change timer to 10 seconds, but haven't modified the undock invulnerability timer to match it.... I think people like the 30 second invuln timer, as it allows them to assess the situation and decided on "the best" course of action before being forced into combat.
As soon as you activate a module, change direction, etc, you give up your invulnerability. Jumping gives up your invulnerability, but since it happens the moment you hit the jump option, only a bubble can stop you from jumping (because you can't jump inside a bubble). |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1669
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 22:24:00 -
[83] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Adelphie wrote:I'm lazy and haven't read the majority of the posts in this thread, but it won't stop me throwing in my tuppence.
One thing which I don't think should be viable is jumping before you've sat out your session timer. The situation where you can cyno jump before you can even be target, I hope, is an unintended "feature" which I would like to see changed in the future.
The session change timer exists so all the right databases and system environments get loaded before you change it all up again by jumping, docking, or what not... The undock invulnerability timer is 30 seconds, which is the same length of time as the old session change timer. When they changed EvE's innards to be more efficient, they reduced the session change timer to 10 seconds, but haven't modified the undock invulnerability timer to match it.... I think people like the 30 second invuln timer, as it allows them to assess the situation and decided on "the best" course of action before being forced into combat. As soon as you activate a module, change direction, etc, you give up your invulnerability. Jumping gives up your invulnerability, but since it happens the moment you hit the jump option, only a bubble can stop you from jumping (because you can't jump inside a bubble).
The reason it remained at 30s is because you still have to load space. The timer starts upon undock, not when your client catches up. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |
Mongo Edwards
Sarz'na Khumatari
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:37:00 -
[84] - Quote
To clarify my last post:
You think that cyno jumping is risk free. Adding a spool up timer for the jump drive makes the capitals vulnerable in the departure system. Which seems to satisfy your requirement for adding risk to the move while at the same time slowing down the capital force protection - the whole two for one thing.
From reading the rest of the pages why must additional risk be present in the arrival system? With the spool up timer you already give potential attackers a head start as far as getting to the beacon and blowing it up or lighting their own - which adds a lot of risk on its own. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:48:00 -
[85] - Quote
carriers jumping to undocks is really not a big problem compared to, say, cap regen-fit supercapitals recharging to jump cap before losing invulnerability, effectively immune in lowsec a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:52:00 -
[86] - Quote
oh wait no "please don't nerf supers again, people paid a lot of iskies for them ((" a rogue goon |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:53:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mongo Edwards wrote:To clarify my last post:
You think that cyno jumping is risk free. Adding a spool up timer for the jump drive makes the capitals vulnerable in the departure system. Which seems to satisfy your requirement for adding risk to the move while at the same time slowing down the capital force protection - the whole two for one thing.
From reading the rest of the pages why must additional risk be present in the arrival system? With the spool up timer you already give potential attackers a head start as far as getting to the beacon and blowing it up or lighting their own - which adds a lot of risk on its own.
I'm not oppsed to your idea, I asked for clarification of what you mean (and i'm still not certain!!).
Given your last statement, this is what I think you mean:
I undock in my starting system. My fleet mate lights a Cyno, which goes up instantly, in the destination system. I then initiate my cynojump from my starting system to my destination system. This requires a spoolup, which you proclaim to be a period of vulnerability.
If I can cancel that spoolup timer, and instantly redock, because a titan decloaked on grid is gonna nuke me.... your suggestion adds no risk to the cyno travel process. It just means you can trap ships in a station and prevent them from leaving (which you can already do with bubbles). I don't see this as changing anything....
If you cannot cancel the spoolup timer, the cynojumping ship is at a serious risk of getting nuked by that titan... This would definitely achieve my desired goal (add risk to cyno traveling), but I think it might be too much.... Personally, I'd rather have the instant jump to a deepsafe cyno of my chosing than the spoolup risk. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
hey Gizznitt Malikite do you actually think that titan pilots cloak up near popular cyno spots waiting for somebody to hop in
because literally nobody in the game does that a rogue goon |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 23:57:00 -
[89] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:carriers jumping to undocks is really not a big problem compared to, say, cap regen-fit supercapitals recharging to jump cap before losing invulnerability, effectively immune in lowsec
huh???
Last time I checked, you do NOT have ANY invulnerability or immunity upon entering system via a cynojump.
You only have invulnerability when undocking (which supercaps can't do) or stargate jumping (which caps can't do). Am I missing something??? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:03:00 -
[90] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:huh???
Last time I checked, you do NOT have ANY invulnerability or immunity upon entering system via a cynojump.
You only have invulnerability when undocking (which supercaps can't do) or stargate jumping (which caps can't do). Am I missing something???
Hi jump a ship to a cyno and try to target it, you have the same invulnerability as you do when taking a jump bridge - you're invulnerable until 30 seconds are up or you activate a module a rogue goon |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:04:00 -
[91] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:hey Gizznitt Malikite do you actually think that titan pilots cloak up near popular cyno spots waiting for somebody to hop in
because literally nobody in the game does that
People do all sorts of stupid things with their titans.... you'd be amazed!!
I don't think it's the norm, but I put it in the example just to give the most extreme danger Mongo's suggestion implies.
@ Mongo....
Also, what happens to the cyno ship if it's tackled during the spoolup timer? It's jump becomes cancelled so it can redock, I'd assume... And then the question comes of what is a reasonable spoolup timer that actually gives risk to the jumping ship?? As Richard pointed out, titans are an extreme case, and if it's only vulnerable to a titan DD or fleet of SC's, then it's not really vulnerable except under extreme circumstances... |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:07:00 -
[92] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:huh???
Last time I checked, you do NOT have ANY invulnerability or immunity upon entering system via a cynojump.
You only have invulnerability when undocking (which supercaps can't do) or stargate jumping (which caps can't do). Am I missing something??? Hi jump a ship to a cyno and try to target it, you have the same invulnerability as you do when taking a jump bridge - you're invulnerable until 30 seconds are up or you activate a module
That just makes the whole safe cyno travel EVEN MORE SAFE.... Not only are you untargetable when you undock, but your untargetable when you cyno in long enough to wait out your 10s session change timer and dock!!
I'll test this tonight... I've never not been able to target a ship cyno'ing in! However, usually it's not the ships cynoing in I'm targeting... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1194
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:12:00 -
[93] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'll test this tonight... I've never not been able to target a ship cyno'ing in! However, usually it's not the ships cynoing in I'm targeting...
The invulnerability you get when jumping to a cyno is different from the invulnerability you get when undocking. When undocking, you can't target anything while invulnerable. When jumping to a cyno, you can target things, but you lose invulnerability the moment you ctrl-click.
When jumping to a cyno, you're invulnerable for 30 seconds until you either activate modules, start moving or you target something. If you don't believe me, jump, say, a carrier to a cyno and try to lock the carrier with the cyno alt when it appears.
If CCP were to nerf the ability to jump to docking rings, dudes would simply hop through lowsec in cap regen fit carriers, and as long as they regen to jump cap before losing invulnerability, they are literally immune outside of bubbleland. a rogue goon |
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 00:44:00 -
[94] - Quote
It's bad enough being camped in a station with a cap ship. You might have to wait weeks for an opportunity to jump if you happen to pick the wrong station to stage out of. If your carrier is holding your deadspace fit machariel, and all the loot from all the work you've done in it, you're not going to risk it at all. You'd only jump to and/or from empty systems. This would do nothing to make cap ships vulnerable. It would just decrease the opportunities to travel when they are invulnerable. This would mean nothing for a large alliance who can blob together for logistics, and hurt the solo multiboxing casual player immensely. It would effectively relegate them to hisec.
It's hard enough to get through 0.0 with these mechanics, if you don't have a sea of blue to depend on. Removing more waypoints from the already paltry map is absurd. I agree, there should be a way to present the same risks in lowsec, maybe. But 0.0 is risky enough. Go park your cap in 1dh. Firesale. That's risk if you ask me. If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1129
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 01:45:00 -
[95] - Quote
Qolde wrote:Go park your cap in 1dh. Firesale. That's risk if you ask me. It's ... interesting you mention that... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:07:00 -
[96] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:I'll test this tonight... I've never not been able to target a ship cyno'ing in! However, usually it's not the ships cynoing in I'm targeting... The invulnerability you get when jumping to a cyno is different from the invulnerability you get when undocking. When undocking, you can't target anything while invulnerable. When jumping to a cyno, you can target things, but you lose invulnerability the moment you ctrl-click. When jumping to a cyno, you're invulnerable for 30 seconds until you either activate modules, start moving or you target something. If you don't believe me, jump, say, a carrier to a cyno and try to lock the carrier with the cyno alt when it appears. If CCP were to nerf the ability to jump to docking rings, dudes would simply hop through lowsec in cap regen fit carriers, and as long as they regen to jump cap before losing invulnerability, they are literally immune outside of bubbleland.
To be honest, I thought this was a troll to encourage people to jump their ships into unsafe situations while thinking they were invulnerable... But that's not the case, and you speak true!!! You have 30 seconds of invulnerability after cyno jumping where nothing can target you (unless you break that invulnerability by activating mods, targetting people, etc).
Essentially, for the patient pilot that's in the know.... there is ZERO risk jumping from station to station.... because you are under station or jump invulnerability during the entire process, except for the 1 second it takes your ship to accepta docking request.
The only risks come from incompetence: Poor cyno placement, panicking when if you bounce, etc...
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:27:00 -
[97] - Quote
Qolde wrote:It's bad enough being camped in a station with a cap ship. You might have to wait weeks for an opportunity to jump if you happen to pick the wrong station to stage out of. If your carrier is holding your deadspace fit machariel, and all the loot from all the work you've done in it, you're not going to risk it at all. You'd only jump to and/or from empty systems. This would do nothing to make cap ships vulnerable. It would just decrease the opportunities to travel when they are invulnerable. This would mean nothing for a large alliance who can blob together for logistics, and hurt the solo multiboxing casual player immensely. It would effectively relegate them to hisec.
It's hard enough to get through 0.0 with these mechanics, if you don't have a sea of blue to depend on. Removing more waypoints from the already paltry map is absurd. I agree, there should be a way to present the same risks in lowsec, maybe. But 0.0 is risky enough. Go park your cap in 1dh. Firesale. That's risk if you ask me.
They changed kickout stations so capitals never undock outside of docking range (unless I'm wrong). As such, the only way someone could keep your carrier camped in station, is to permabubble the undock... You undock, ctrl+space, wait 10 seconds, if there is no bubble, you cyno out. If there is a bubble, you redock... They can't even bump you while your under the undock invulnerability. It takes a lot of dedication (or at least anchored bubbles on the undock), to prevent you from leaving!!
To prevent you coming, they have to prevent you from lighting a cyno. Granted, this is easier than preventing you leaving, as you really need to position your cyno in a location that insures your carrier will cyno into dock range and doesn't bump the station.
While I understand you take extra precautions with your precious toys, it doesn't change the fact that cyno travel is extremely safe and risk free when done right!!!
|
Dirk Magnum
Sarz'na Khumatari
262
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:29:00 -
[98] - Quote
Easiest solution is to just split the difference. Keep the mechanics for cynoing out the same, but establish a minimum distance from docking range for lit cynos and don't allow jumping into a cyno located within a bubble.
1. Permacamped stations aren't completely unable to move anything out, but...
2. There's more risk trying to get stuff in.
Doesn't meet all of OP's requirements but it keeps the supply flow disrupted by a blockading force with sufficient dedication.
Next, to address hotdropping, add a five second spin-up time for cyno jumping. Make the jumping ship invulernable to electronic warfare (or station invulnerability, if applicable) during this time, but if the cyno lighter is destroyed or the cyno placed in a bubble before the ship jumps, the jump is cancelled. Capacitor power is not deducted until a successful jump occurs. Hot drops would remain a viable tactic, but would become more difficult to pull off effectively against small gangs or individuals fighting other small gangs or individuals, where a cyno ship can quickly be identified and destroyed or (in Nul), bubbled. Presto, you've got a solo/small-gang PvP buff. "For example, if you are thinking about selling a Republic Fleet Firetail as a regular Firetail, be sure that the market volume is high on regular Firetails and that there are plenty of buy/sell contracts for Republic Fleet Firetails. [...] The players most interested in Republic Fleet Firetails are going to be players flying regular ones."-á -- PB |
Qolde
Bombs Away. Nulli Tertius
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 02:34:00 -
[99] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Qolde wrote:Go park your cap in 1dh. Firesale. That's risk if you ask me. It's ... interesting you mention that... Isn't it? If someone craps in your sandbox: 1. Light it on fire 2. Grab your shovel 3. Throw it back at them. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1129
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 04:17:00 -
[100] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:As such, the only way someone could keep your carrier camped in station, is to permabubble the undock... You undock, ctrl+space, wait 10 seconds, if there is no bubble, you cyno out. If there is a bubble, you redock... They can't even bump you while your under the undock invulnerability. It takes a lot of dedication (or at least anchored bubbles on the undock), to prevent you from leaving!! Is that what they call a...
rapecage?
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |