|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.09 19:08:00 -
[1]
It is a pretty good idea provided the required module can not be fitted on any old hull. Make it sufficiently hard to fit and perhaps add a range/fuel/fitting bonus to one hull or another (T3 frigate sub-system perhaps?).
Would primarily "protect" against the limited hot-drop, the crap seen on gates/stations perpetrated by bored capital pilots and their alts and the more and more common Titan bridge from low-sec POS onto cruiser gangs *sigh*
I do not really see the large cyno-ins, the ones requiring all that time and ice and what not, as really being affected much at all except for the ones that insist on dropping out 5m from a target. If the ship fielding the module could be easily identified it might be something for a small strike team to do prior to a mass-jump (assassinations are always fun )
Here's an idea to make it a game of tag: - Anti-Cyno has similar effect as cyno, ship immobilized for the duration .. or maybe slowed to a crawl. Maybe even disallow RR in a similar way as is done with HICs. - Cyno can not be popped within field - goes without saying. - If field is deployed on top of an existing cyno the cyno instantly cycles off allowing cyno ship to reposition (anti-cyno "stuck" as above, but initial drop averted).
Another potential balancing point; dependent on what fitting reqs are used, make cynos popped by the dedicated ships (ie. Combat Recons) immune to counter. Note: Would automatically exempt covert cynos since they can only be fitted on specific ships.
Addendum: Personally still more in favour of making the fuel cost for any jump into low-sec stupidly high (except for J.Freighters/Coverts) to limit the impact of 0.0 fail-trains on low-sec life
Good idea if done right and restricted enough so as to not adversely (at least minimize) affect the much loved capital slug-fests.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.10 15:10:00 -
[2]
Originally by: K'racker Valid concerns
If one party is using a bait ship how do you tell which side is the attacker and why concern oneself about the baits survival?
The scenarios you describe is exactly what that the idea is trying to address, the lame hot-drop on a handful of targets/bait-ship. It would have marginal effect in bubble-land where most every system is jammed anyway but a huge impact in low-sec fighting which is the objective. The whole idea of deploying capitals against sub-caps is insane, would be equal to carpet bombing an entire city block to kill a lone sniper (or similarly exaggerated response).
The low-sec hot-drop is a major killjoy for everyone except the ones who conduct them (a minority I assure you). One can still have carrier support but has to be in place in system before hand to perform a regular warp if a jammer is expected.
If it disrupts the PvP wannabes that can't win against anything larger than a HAC without capital support then I am all for it.
As for the specific scenarios (2 and 3, not a fan of the displacement thing), why would a bait ship that just received a swift kick to its plans not warp off or jump a gate once the initial tackler immobilizes itself?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 06:53:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Xiang Jiao I am enjoying the banter and fruitful discussion. Instead of adding new balancing issues with more modules, let's think about why nerfing local chat is a good idea (i.e. make it function like w-space). It will enforce better tactics in all aspects of the game. Capitals would be much more hesitant to jump blindly on top of fleets when an ambush may await them. Recon will actually take some skill. Jumps and kills per hour will start to become very meaningful stats.
Removing local won't solve the issue at hand. If the hot-dropper also does the necessary recon then you are back to square one with one side being completely unable to predict or anticipate anything in advance. Does the map tallies actually work now? last time I used it there was a significant delay making it pretty much useless as an intel tool.
[Offtopic] Removing local would at present mainly benefit people with less than honourable intentions. It has to be balanced with some other way of knowing what is coming (time consuming scan perhaps) without having to resort to alts, spies and large gangs to maintain a semblance of safety. I am generally against removing local in high-/low-sec due to RP reasons unless it would enhance gameplay significantly which is not the case as it stands. For null-sec some kind of local control for a sovereignty holder would make sense but might further buff defensive efforts and by extension encourage even larger blobs .. either way, different topic entirely.[/Offtopic]
Originally by: genette devo lowsec toughguys crying about uneven fights, priceless.
What does that make you then? Ponder that as you accept the same mission for the umpteenth time in high-sec
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.11 21:07:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Baneken ........
A reverse bridge type of thing. Would make capital battles almost impossible to setup since you'd need tons of cyno ships just to get the big dogs on the field. Could be solved by adding security status of system being jumped to as a multiplier, thus essentially exempting null-sec while practically requiring a hauler in 0.4 systems (which often have the camped high-sec borders).
Personally more partial to a simpler system sec. multiplier on fuel consumption for all jumps. Would make having capitals "living" in low-sec a drain on the wallet and discourage the drops. Could even abuse the existence of the fuel bay to make two consecutive 0.1-0.2 jumps impossible without refuelling.
Delay on warp/cloak/dock/bridge action after cyno could have some "happy" side-effects in the low-sec transit systems where carriers come and go on stations all day, as long as sieging and offensive action was not delayed that is
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.12 17:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Malakai Draevyn ...As one of the afore-mentioned covops cyno stealthbomber hotdroppers, it would land everything in the fleet at exactly the correct optimal range to rain down a torrent of torps and bombs onto your little fleet.
Be careful what you wish for... You might just get it, and it might not exactly swing in your favour.
Good thing almost all proponents in the thread want it as a low-sec option and could care less about the silly null-sec bomber gangs .. but you are welcome to use your flimsy ship near sentries, I am sure Concord is just as hungry for mails as we are
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.14 16:51:00 -
[6]
Originally by: debbie harrio Smartbombing battleship gate griefers in low sec are prime targets for hotdrop gangs, so maybe that is what the problem here is, they have been noted and get a lot of attention off bigger corps/alliances with caps/titans, if this is the case I would recommend that they change their tactics and fit some offensive hi slot modules.
And what of the remaining 90% of the people being victimised by bored capital pilots and corps/alliances who has failed in null-sec?
Drops used against pirate camps represents a small minority of the total. Drops are not just carriers/dreads but an increasing number of bridges made from 100% safe (no bubbling) Titans from inside low-sec POS'es.
That is what is breaking low-sec life. The pirates have been here since before Capitals were even introduced and are killed or driven off by regular hulls on a daily basis.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.04.15 08:01:00 -
[7]
Originally by: debbie harrio and tell me how is a titan 100% safe at a POS in low sec?
Destroy the pos and it's pilot is unable to log on.
Bubbles do not exist remember? Destroying a stronted POS takes two days so pilot can log on at any time and jump out if he wants. Has no effect on a pilots ability to log on .. don't know where you got that notion. Even if you kill a POS and it is logged off you have station 2+ HIC (one without backup gets DD'ed) permanently at the location in case it logs on .. have fun with that.
Yes, victimised. What other word fits when sub-BC gangs are dropped by massive BS blobs and/or X amount of carriers? It is being done against frigate gangs for craps sake, that is how badly the null-sec fail-trains affect low-sec life.
Capitals have no place in low-sec so it should be prohibitively expensive to use capitals in low-sec. Low-sec is Empire space .. you don't see American carriers launching air-strikes against random criminals on British soil either, which is what it amounts to. If people fail in null-sec there are loads of 0.0 NPC areas they can flee to while planning their rebuilding.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.05.19 15:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: killer chick ...i think this example is the most effective ways of dealing with a hot drop. http://adhd.evekb.co.uk/?a=kill_related&kll_id=1429249
Very impressive but as Hazel said, you are actually proving the point. The normal low-sec citizenry doesn't have Titan's ready to bridge or MoM's, Dreads and Carriers idling everywhere .. the entire "just counter hot-drop" argument falls flat for the vast majority of us.
A 20-50km location shift from a cyno would have had zero effect on the outcome of a gank such as the one you linked nor will it have any noticeable effect when dropping in on a pirate camp that has been properly aggressed .. but it will severely hamper/discourage the random drops on anything cruiser sized and up.
Personally I think the best way is to scale fuel consumption with sec. status of system jumped to. Would make it a costly affair to drop anything and everything and provide more traffic, as systems used as pit-stops would require large quantities of replacement fuel brought in when null decides to wave their spaghetti arms around on the other side of the cluster (provides intercept points to avert assaults as well). Let low-sec be the battleground where conventional's are the standard and let null keep their super-/capital blobs to themselves!
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.05.20 11:37:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 20/05/2010 11:40:30
Originally by: Dlardrageth Ofc, if hotdrops in low-sec are such a nuisance and drama factor, lobbying instead for a system cyno jammer (POS module) that works in low-sec might be too easy a solution...
Would disrupt cross-cluster traffic to no end and I doubt the Empires would stand for it. The one thing that keeps jammers tolerable in null is availability of bridges, so you would need those as well .. not a sound plan
Originally by: Sha4d13 These people want to gank without risk.
And what of those who Titan bridge and drop MoMs/Carriers onto anything that moves within drop range? How is that nooblet PvP any better than the lame campers? At least the campers are visible and lit up like a red light district for all to see ..
Originally by: Robert Caldera Basically, (capital) hotdrops do the same thing to lowsec campers, what campers do to travelers, passing through lowsec. Simple thing. A bigger fish eats the smaller one -> all fine with this.
Fish analogies, this thread is getting weirder and weirder But OK I'll play: Where are the coral reefs and plants for the small fish to use as cover against the big fish?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.05.22 09:36:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Robert Caldera I dont see a reason why hotdropping camps should be made more complicated and less effective. There is simply no reason.
I see your arguments are still made from the infinitely flawed assumption that capitals are only used against BS heavy gate camps .. you expect the rest of us to wait for reality to catch up to you or continue without you entirely? More complicated? That implies that it is complicated now which is stretching the truth just a tad. Unless of course you only count the numerous occasions where a 1-2 carrier drop is done by a single player multi-boxing - that is an indication as to how easy it is though not the other way around. And less effective? Provided a carrier isn't using 'conventional' RR modules it is just as effective at 30km as it is at 0km .. the only thing that would change is carriers ability to neut/point from the get go which is hardly a major game breaker.
I am still not convinced that a cyno displacer will have any effect at all, certainly not the desired one. With capital numbers going up daily the problems they cause in low-sec are going to get a lot worse. Between nodes not being re-inforcable (fights are usually impromptu anyway) and no way of removing unwanted neutral OV entries, I fear low-sec will degenerate even further in the years to come.
Keep their power but make pilots pay - multiply all fuel consumption (jump, cyno, triage) based on security of system and using conventionals will suddenly become an attractive alternative to dropping a bunch of capitals just because one can.
|
|
|
|
|