| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
The Fong
Recreational Vehicle Enthusiasts Club - WH Chapter
Corrosive.
1
   |
Posted - 2014.03.24 02:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm a full time WH purist living in a C5 in a small but growing alliance.
I'd support a delay to sig visibility on the scanner under two conditions:
1) Active signature continue to provide real-time intel for the vigilant. Like the old days.
2) Ore sites are made signatures instead of anomalies. Like the old days.
I'll go so far as to predict a solution like I've outlined here will be what is implemented. I support these views because I don't want halftime nullsec outfits running skeleton crews deflating the price of my jam. See exhibit A, the recent deflation of the nanoribbon. C5s aren't your cash cow, buddy.
We actually use our ore sites because going to k-space for anything other than attacking nullseccers or selling blue tags is bad luck. Like stepping on the cracks on the sidewalk, break your mother's back. In return we get ore, ridicule, and a lossboard so littered with retrievers it would make even the worst nullsec industrial corp blush. Ore sites in WH are much less safe than mining in remote parts of null. Some may say it is even as dangerous as highsec mining these days. |
The Fong
Recreational Vehicle Enthusiasts Club - WH Chapter
Corrosive.
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 04:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Thank you for tackling this Fozzie. It's an important issue, I'm glad I caught this thread as soon as it showed up on my overview.
Has the discussion at the dev/CSM level involved ore sites post-Odyssey or has it been primarily concerned with K162s? Should ore sites on the overview be considered topical for purposes of this thread?
It may sound shallow, but as a soon to be cap pilot I need ore to build caps. In my mind, these two topics are connected.
I want candy, bubble gum, and taffy.
Dreadnoughts, carriers, and Rorquals.
Skip to the sweet shop with my sweetheart Sandy.
|
The Fong
Recreational Vehicle Enthusiasts Club - WH Chapter
Corrosive.
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 05:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
AutumnWind1983 wrote:If you're mining in a wh you're doing it wrong.
Quoted for truth.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
Granted there will always be a few miners. Mostly players new to WH space with the occaisonal masocist writing his BOB-sacrficed retrievers off the books under the derecognized assets column.
|
The Fong
Recreational Vehicle Enthusiasts Club - WH Chapter
Corrosive.
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 08:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
DoToo Foo wrote:Allowing a mobile scan inhibitor to hide a sig would even be acceptable.
This is an idea that merits further exploration. What I'm hearing from larger WH entities is they want fights to result from rolling hole and they like the suprises of unknown space. Regular C5/6 connections are not providing that at the moment because quick scouting by both parties and information symmetry leads to stand downs. Home team cap superiority contributes to some extent also.
Imagine this for a moment: a new deployable you anchor in your home system which lasts for 6 hours and prevents any OUTGOING connections from registering a K162 in their target system for, say, 3-15 minutes. However, any ship that passes through has its dscan disabled for that period as well as sig scanning for ALL ships in the target system.
For the timer haters out there, this is one timer.
You could imagine the C5/6 v. C5/6 standoff looking something like this:
The attacking side's covops or multiple covops would enter a newly rolled static and have their dscan inhibited. They have the option of either launching combat probes or scouting out anomalies and POS's silently/manually while the dscan inhibition clock counts down. If the attacking fleet attacks a target(s) of opportunity, some degree of information superiority is now granted to the defenders who are not dscan inhibited. The home team defenders can choose to fleet up and take a fight or burn their existing fleet back through the chain home without a head count from the attackers (due to the signature scanning disability in system). Fights are more likely to happen somewhere in system rather than on a WH connection; which is a nice change of scenery after years of T3 fleet/capital standoffs occurring on a WH.
Things I haven't thought through:
- How or whether this applies to lower class wormholes.
- How the sig scanning disability would be implemented and how the penalty would be obscured from pilots in the target system.
Take information assymetry from the attackers, and apply it to both sides and C5/6 combat will burn bright. Reward the bold and the risk takers :) |
| |
|