EVE Search - The Tyranny of the Cynofield

All Channels

Warfare & Tactics

The Tyranny of the Cynofield

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.02 02:27:00 - [1] I have similar thoughts about the issue. Hot dropping game mechanic is too hard to scout and it introduces too much randomness into battlefield, and randomness destroys clever strategy planning. There is no easy way to tell who got the cyno, there is no way to tell who may come to the cyno. It may be a single carrier, it may be 100 man fleet. No way to tell. I have proposed a reasonable solution to make the game better in that respect. My idea is to add a new high slot, active module that acts as mobile cyno jammer with 20-30km radius. That way people could still do hot drops, just not right on top of people who invest some protection. There was also a bigger long term solution involving the overhaul of cyno travel - where the basic idea is to prevent insta-travel and introduce some time delay, similar to warping, that ships have to go thru on the way to cyno destination. I won't get into more details, they are lost in the Ideas and Feature forum.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.05 19:52:00 - [2] The bottom line is that hot drops are a big random factor in game - when looked at from global perspective. Even the people who perform the hot drop and spend time organizing and planning - they still face a random factor that they will get counter dropped. Randomness is enemy of planning and strategy making. I'll address some key opposition points: Quote: * the supply chain for jump fuel goes all the way down to the level of ice mining and the logistics necessary to gather and move it to fleet and stash points are staggering in scope * the skills training necessary to fly the ships that can mount cynos/portals and then the skills necessary to open covert cynos, covert jump portals, regular cynos, and regular jump portals are in the range of 1 year of skill training (less for the cyno ships, but they're useless without a portal ship) * the resources necessary to build or buy and then deploy those ships goes well over 10 to 20 billion, depending on fleet composition and fittings * the resources, training, and RL skills necessary to build up a good fleet, get it working like a well-oiled machine, and then retain the pilots you worked so hard to train takes a lot of time, in some cases years for the best hot drop fleets It should be emphasized that we aren't talking about removing cyno hot dropping from game. Nor are we discussing any major changes to all the things listed above. So far the suggested things are: force hot drop 30km away from certain protected ships. Force a minor delay between cyno lit and drop. For a major operation, the kind that has actually been carefully planned and well prepared for, these set backs aren't going to be significant. Quote: * the time spent and the number of scouts, force recons, and probers necessary to cover a vast number of systems for the purpose of finding and stalking targets is substantial. I know I've sat waiting for hours while our FC stalked targets. You make it sound like its the easiest thing in the world and it should be nerfed because a 5 man roaming gang is at a disadvantage. Of course its at a disadvantage, its contending with a force that took many billions, many months, many people, and a lot of work to put together. Thats the reward for hard work--a very powerful weapon. It's important to understand that not all hot drops are equal. What he describes there is an "elite" operation. From personal experience, I hardly ever see that kind of planning and scouting - mostly because I don't observe large fleet fights but focus entirely on small gangs. And in small gangs, people often do hot drops with almost no preparation, 1-3 minute of decision making and moving a tackler with cyno. Often times the drop is just 1-2 carriers, hardly a big investment, yet overwhelming to 1-2 battleship/HAC pilots. Indeed, hot dropping wouldn't be that much of an issue if it was done by the standards I quoted. It has become a problem because people don't treat it as a big thing anymore. They don't care for planning, for investment, they just drop anything with minimum of effort or risk, sometimes they don't even care for a loss of a carrier, it just doesn't mean much at all anymore. In conclusion, we should provide very limited counter measures to hot dropping and to add intelligence gathering tools with some ways to scout the hot drop fleet.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.05 21:34:00 - [3] Quote: Spread out. Keep moving. Stay aligned to something. Get a ship scanner and check out the target before engaging. This is a tactical movement issue, not a game mechanic issue. I fly in 2 ships gang, and I get hot dropped almost every day when I focus entirely on roaming PvP. How am I supposed to "spread out"? Get a ship scanner before engaging? why don't you try small gang roaming PvP and see how many ships you manage to scan before they kill you or escape. Small gang roaming pvp suffers the most from this tactic
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.07 04:43:00 - [4] Originally by: Cameron Freerunner Yes, more money, skill training time, and resources should be a factor. He who works hardest and amasses the most resources fields the best, most powerful fleet. That is the entire point of of this game. Grab or protect resources while building a fleet, an industrial infrastructure, and a corp membership. In so doing, overpower and outmanuever your opponents, limiting their ability to field a fleet, engage in economic activity and gather resources. There are plenty of ways to deal with hot drops. A cheap, one-click countermeasure shouldn't be one of them. I tend to agree with your 1st statement, but I don't think your 2nd statement is valid for the proposed ideas. A very limited range cyno jammer and a 10 second delay on jumping is hardly an overpowering solution. It by no means negates all the usefulness of hot dropping. It just makes it a little less of "a cheap, one-click countermeasure" to hostile gang. After all, you wouldn't defend getting rid of warp delay between objects in system so it could be just as instantaneous as cyno jumping? neither would you defend getting rid of warp bubbles and HICs to counter enemy escapes. These are all reasonable things, nothing overly exaggerated.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.07 18:26:00 - [5] Quote: I bet Alexander, Napoleon, Rommel ect is rolling in their graves about your "notions" about "clever strategy planning". I'm pretty sure that if they faced a threat of a 'wizard' that could open a portal and move a huge army from far away land instantly - they would be pretty horrified. I really don't think you make a good point with that one.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.07 20:51:00 - [6] Quote: I'm pretty sure they would either have killed the wizard, or figured out how to duplicate the wizard's abilities. Either way, I don't think either Alexander, Napoleon, Rommel ect cared much for the concept of "balance" between opposing units and factions. Of course, each player may be similar to them in their strive to succeed by any means possible. But what we are discussing here are the rules that define in the scope of possible action. We essentially play god, deciding whether the world would be better off with wizards that open portals or not. In the end, the goal is to make an entertaining game. I believe the current hot dropping mechanic is detrimental to that, due to lack of effective scouting and counters. However, I would be willing to accept logic of your side if you also agree to support complete reverse of the Great Nano Nerf. The reasoning behind that nerf was the same thing we argue about now. Some people invested time and money, prepared strategies that worked, yet CCP ripped it from the game with iron pliers. Can game designers be more consistent than politicians?
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.08 04:30:00 - [7] The funny part is that I tried to to push a moderate proposal, even tho I'd personally favor something stronger. But in the end, exaggerated point shouting drowns any voice of reason. After participating in many such debates, I'm beginning to understand the difficulties politicians face when they try to push any reform - they simply get trolled. I push my ideas mostly because I have a keen interest in game design, and I at least put the good of the game before personal interest. Of course my definition of good game is different, but it's the thought that counts.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.08 19:19:00 - [8] Originally by: Cameron Freerunner I'm sorry but I still don't understand the problem. There is exactly ONE thing a hot dropping carrier can do that is of any consequence to the ships being dropped on and that is smartbombs. Proposing entire changes to game mechanics because someone got caught trying to gank someone and then got dropped on and destroyed is just silly. You seem to be forgetting that the player getting ganked could make many of the same arguments about game balance and making losec easier on players. Cameron Freerunner, since you seem like an intelligent sort, I'd like to hear your reasoning for opposing a short range cyno jammer. So far all I heard was "hot drops don't deserve any counters because they are expensive and take a lot of time to prepare" and "short range cyno jammer would be a 1 click cheap solution to prevent hot drops" Is there anything else you'd like to add? Assuming that a 25km active cyno jammer does get implemented, what negative gameplay effects do you see? will big alliances suddenly become helpless in the face of marauding small gangs? will large fleet warfare in sieged systems will change dramatically in favor of defenders? Or will he game just become less fun and more frustrating for people with big money just like after the Great Nano Nerf?
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.08 22:58:00 - [9] Quote: why do you need a game mechanic change that has exactly one real effect--the hot dropped ship will appear just out of smartbomb range. Really? An entire design process for that? The goal is that the hot dropped ships should appear outside of scramble range. That means that the bait tackle can not be effective cyno and would need another person with cyno. And the the ships exiting cyno would not be in immediate tackle range of the victim and require at least minimal maneuvering effort. In EVE tackle range is roughly 25 km, not counting overheating and specialized ships. And that range plays key role in the whole design of EVE PvP.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.09 17:18:00 - [10] Quote: Depending on the fitting limitations of the module (and here we start talking about design issues, because limiting it to one ship type comes with a whole host of balance issues), if a recon pilot can mount a cyno AND a displacer, he guarantees that the fleet jumps in outside of the bubble. What happens when more than one displacer module is activated in close proximity? For example, a cluster of ships all pop the displacer module so that there is slight overlap to the fields. Will that mean that you jump into the system outside the original field? Or will you keep getting bumped further and further out to the edge of all the fields? There seems to be some misunderstanding about how the proposed cyno jammer will work. First, I completely agree that such a module should not be restricted to a specific class ship - just as the cyno generator is unrestricted. Activation of the cyno jammer would block any ship from jumping to the cyno within distance. Even if the cyno was lit before the jammer is activating, a carrier in another system would try to jump but get message like "cyno is jammed, can't perform jump" This module in no way allows ships to jump in 25~ km from the target cyno.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.09 19:14:00 - [11] Edited by: Ephemeron on 09/04/2010 19:15:49 Well, I am concerned about the mobility of the cyno jammer. When people open cynos, they become immobile, and if a portable cyno jammer can also be fitted on any ship, it should have severe penalty to movement once activated - probably become immobile just like cyno gen ship. That would make things fair. As for a single frig preventing a huge fleet from cyno jumping into system - well, a single frig can also make a huge fleet appear in the system. So how is that not balanced out? Space is pretty big, so if some starts a 25km radius bubble, move out of the way to light your cyno. You can do it from safe spot, from friendly POS, or simply when the enemy is 30+ km away. Even if they have the mobile cyno jammer, it would take them 5+ seconds to get in range and activate it, enough for the insta-jumping fleet to enter. Once mobility issues are addressed, things seem to balance out quite nicely. Quote: It is a pretty good idea provided the required module can not be fitted on any old hull. One of my major gripes is that the cyno generator can be fitted on any old hull, even cheap disposable t1 frigs. I would be more than happy to restrict cyno jammer to a specific class of ships, provided that the cyno generator is also restricted to specific class of ships. Fair is fair.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.11 21:31:00 - [12] I really don't think Baneken's fuel idea is the way to go. It's much more radical than the cyno jammer and jump delay ideas, and would have very little impact on small gang hot drops while having huge impact on large scale fleet battles. The whole point of this thread is to provide some counters against people hot dropping their carriers on 1-5 ship roaming gangs, where small guys have no chance.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.12 19:00:00 - [13] I'd like to remind people that the proposed "counters" are not removing the tactic of hot dropping from game. We are not trying to prevent hot drops as viable tactic. It can still be done even against the ships using proposed counters, only with a little bit more effort and a little bit more team work. In worst case scenario, it would require 2 ships to go in for the hot drop - one as bait, other as cyno generator to drop cyno outside of range of attackers who swarm the bait. Both sides use team work. Both sides have a chance to achieve their objectives.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.12 19:09:00 - [14] Originally by: Hurtful Words Originally by: Cameron Freerunner Never engage a solo recon unless you're prepared for a hot drop. Best advice in this thread. Oh yea, so unless I'm in one of the mega alliances with 100 dreads and several titans on standby, I shouldn't bother with PvP at all, right? After all, that lonely recon just MAY have 99 dreads on standby and I need to make sure I got more before I should try PvP What excellent advice And while we are on the subject of good advice, how can someone with your reasoning against this counter ignore the fact that EVE has a system wide cyno jammer POS module, which is MUCH more powerful and clearly overpowered compared to the very limited usability of proposed mobile cyno jammer? If you firmly believe that cynos should not be jammed, you should be screaming your head off at the "injustice" of system cyno jammers. But if you purposefully ignore it, you are either just not smart enough to see the obvious inconsistency in game design or you just don't give a damn about game design, and just say whatever you feel like without relying on logic.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.13 22:40:00 - [15] some people like chess, some people like checkers
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.14 02:53:00 - [16] I'm afraid you are the one playing checkers. I want more pieces, that do different things, to make some fancier strategies with. The important information has been presented, the rest is just repeating the same thing over and over again on both sides.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.04.15 20:25:00 - [17] Quote: Of course, this wouldn't really serve the needs of the OP since he was originally asking for a module that a small gang could use to effectively block out an incoming cap fleet. But really, should a small roving gang of cruisers or whatever be able to cynojam an incoming cap fleet? I think not. I would like to clarify again, since it seems to be a common misconception, that the proposed cyno jammer does not block or prevent hot drops by large fleets. What it does is force that fleet to find a location for cyno that is at least 30km away from the ship with cyno jammer. Any determined fleet would be able to enter the system no matter how many mobile cyno jammers are active, because it is very easy to get around the 30km sphere in 3D space.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.04.30 20:37:00 - [18] Originally by: Rockstara This is silly. Hotdropped capitals pose little risk to skirmish gangs, even with bubbles in null sec. If you are in an RR BS gang, and worried about a triage hotdrop - have your own triage on standby. If you suffer constant hotdrops and don't have the capital hardware to set a trap you are going to have to make friends either with the promise of capital kills or payments of isk. carriers and dreads suck against subcap ships. I recommend you try flying in Delve for a few weeks before you make such wildly inaccurate claims. And if you got caps willing to jump into a hostile hot drop for isk, I may arrange some work for you. Make sure to fit nice mods.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.16 07:59:00 - [19] Originally by: Drendel If the real issue is hotdrop's why not make it where a targeted ship cannot maintain a cyno. This drops the hotdrop bait issue and dosent create usless programing for CCP so they can work on things a bit more important like lag in large fights. That would be an interesting twist, that could actually work in a balanced way. But it doesn't make much sense for target lock to prevent cynos. Such a solution would mostly solve the solo cyno bait problem, requiring at least 2 people for successful ambush. Still, I like my idea of dedicated module better.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.19 23:08:00 - [20] Originally by: JASON W0RTHING Originally by: tiviirulez No it is not. Discussion was about can you beam a batallion of special forces into a suburb street brawl by pushing a button on your mobile irl? Yes. The analogy would be more accurate if instead of battalion you beamed down a couple aircraft carriers to the street fight.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 00:06:00 - [21] Originally by: Robert Caldera Originally by: Ephemeron Yes. The analogy would be more accurate if instead of battalion you beamed down a couple aircraft carriers to the street fight. yes, because pushing navy cruisers and battleships through streets is more realistic. Okay lets say a couple rednecks are fishing at a lake and start fighting over a tangled fishing line. Then one of them pressed a button and 2 fighter carriers drop into the lake
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 17:29:00 - [22] I don't see any good arguments why we SHOULDN'T have a short range cyno jammer. As far as mainstream fleet battles go, it would have very little impact, since multiple people are involved, they can find a place to activate cyno away from the jammer ships. For bait and drop tactics, you'd just need 2 people on the scene instead of 1. Again no problem for anyone who's putting some effort into setting up a trap. The only people who will be most annoyed by this are the bored cap pilots that just want to bait and drop somebody with minimum effort. Why shouldn't be such a module? it increases complexity of the battlefield, allowing creation of new strategies on both sides. Sounds like fun
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 18:14:00 - [23] Originally by: Cameron Freerunner Originally by: Ephemeron I don't see any good arguments why we SHOULDN'T have a short range cyno jammer. There have been many. Just none you choose to acknowledge or with which you agree. For whatever reason, you choose to completely ignore the many, many methods for avoiding a hotdrop. Refusing to employ any of those methods is not an argument FOR adding such a module. Having alternatives is not a good reason for disallowing short range cyno jammer. I'm sorry but this reasoning doesn't qualify as good. That's like saying, apples shouldn't exist because if you like fruits you can have oranges, mangoes, cherries, and bananas. Originally by: Cameron Freerunner You talk about adding complexity, but this module would reduce it. It would save all the necessary scout and intel work that should be employed in anti-hotdrop tactics and fleet warfare in general. It seems to come down to a desire to limit the battlespace to whatever grid you are currently on. You also seem to be one of the few people having any issues with it. Again, invalid reasoning. The short range cyno jammer complicates the battlefield by its mere existence. As it is a new variable, and all variables have to be accounted for when planning strategies. It doesn't get any more fundamental than that. There are higher level complications, if you aren't satisfied with fundamentals. The defender has to choose whether to fit the cyno jammer or not, sacrificing a high slot, thus reducing battle effectiveness. Defender has to choose when to activate such a module, as he never knows for sure whether the attacker plans to use cyno or not. I'm sure activation will have some penalties. Things get complicated for the attacker, as the defender has no idea whether cyno will be used, the attacker has no idea whether a cyno jammer is used. Both sides are at equal disadvantage on information. Attacker has to plan for at least 2 scenarios, as opposed to one: plan of action of there is no cyno jammer, and plan of action if there is a cyno jammer. More advanced strategy would be to try maximize tackle and drop effectiveness by employing at least 2 people, where 1 proceeds by the plan that there is no cyno jammer, and other proceeds by the plan that there is cyno jammer. These are high level complexities. Originally by: Cameron Freerunner The vast majority of EVE seems to be getting along just fine. Likewise, the vast majority of EVE was getting along just fine before caps were introduced to the game. It is silly to use that kind of argument, tho technically it is valid.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 18:57:00 - [24] Edited by: Ephemeron on 20/05/2010 19:00:42 Originally by: Robert Caldera so you dont believe such a jammer, effectively preventing the only method for removing camps, would not be a mandatory part in campers toolbox? What a ****head are you? Only the most lazy and dim witted would fail in light of this simple counter. I suggest looking into possibility of 2 people. One bait, one cyno. Can you connect the dots? If not, you deserve to fail. For sake of good game design, I would be willing to make exception for Covert Cynos - make them unjammable. That should go for system jammers too. It's the general purpose cynos that are currently running unrestrained, that need something to reign them in.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 19:23:00 - [25] Originally by: Robert Caldera rofl and no, campers are not as bright as they would just cynojam their camp permanently with a dedicated ship only for that only purpose? Why am I actually argueing with such a noob like you? It would be more appropriate for me to ask that 2nd question. The answer is simple - just bored. In case you have forgotten, the mobile cyno jammer is short range. Probably 25km radius. That means you can have a 2nd person warp in at 30-50 km from the gate and light the cyno, and have the drop before they can react. Yes, hot dropping against a well prepared and organized opponent will no longer be a no brainer. As much as you hate those lowly gate camping pirates, if they are better than you, they deserve to win.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.20 20:41:00 - [26] I recommend reading the first 2 posts again.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.22 23:27:00 - [27] Edited by: Ephemeron on 22/05/2010 23:28:15 Quote: I am still not convinced that a cyno displacer will have any effect at all, certainly not the desired one. I think the idea of cyno displacer is a bad one. As you guessed it would have little useful effect and just make things really weird for jumping ships. Cyno jammer is the way to go. Cyno jammer would not prevent people from lighting a cyno beacon. It would prevent all the caps from jumping to it. So when they select the "jump to" command, they would get error - while cyno jammer is active and in range.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.05.23 05:01:00 - [28] Originally by: FT Diomedes I don't understand. Why wouldn't every competent FC have one of these with his fleet at all times? They would have it. Just as they have at least several cyno carrying ships. I believe that's the idea - the mobile cyno jammer will become a new tool in strategy planning. Originally by: FT Diomedes Eve is supposed to be about risks. If some asshat thinks it's funny to try to gank my cyno Kestrel with his Abaddon, he should be afraid that I am going to drop two supercarriers on him because I think it is funny. But in that case it is balanced already - you can cyno you ships with cheap disposable kestrels on an alt char. It costs you almost nothing, and thus the risk for killing it should also be almost nothing. Besides, if that Abaddon you mentioned decides to equip with a cyno jammer, he will be sacrificing one of his guns or heavy neuts - which is going to cost him when real fighting starts. Originally by: FT Diomedes If someone wants to sit on a gate in Tama with a smartbombing supercarrier and obliterate auto-piloting noobs, he shouldn't be immune to my hotdrop because he was one of your stupid modules on his alt. And indeed he won't be. As the cyno jammer will be limited range and you can still hot drop him all you want by lighting a cyno just 30km from him. It won't make much of a difference if you properly setup the trap. Originally by: FT Diomedes A hotdrop ois the one method of attacking from over the horizon we have in Eve. Leave it alone. Unpredictability is fun. Unfortunately, too much unpredictability ruins the fun as well, as it makes clever strategy planning less important than making wild gambles. I'd never propose something that completely removes random factors, or diminishes them to point of insignificance. I just want things to be more balanced, that's all.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.