EVE Search - Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Corporate/Alliance Warfare: Cynosural Jammer mechanics

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:36:00 - [31] I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect of the game. Cynosural jammers are not that terrible, except for maybe the armor HP, which could be a tad lower. The real issue continues to be blobs, which are made possible by enabling people to throw everything in an attack because they need no defence. If you force people to defend, then you will see far fewer blobs. ------------------------------------------------
sallyr Gallente The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:39:00 - [32] Yes Blackops are sub capital, but i think they should also be jammed. my reason, the main advantage to having a cyno blocker is to force the hostile fleet into a camp! blockops could jump bridge a whole fleet of recons, which would decimate there battleships from close range. ive only ever been on the side jumping into the camp, but i still totaly agree with it! its one of the only things in eve that still give you a good solid fight!
Adrian Steel Caldari The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:50:00 - [33] Originally by: sallyr blockops could jump bridge a whole fleet of recons, which would decimate there battleships from close range.
HenkieBoy Enrave Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2008.01.28 09:04:00 - [34] I think the whole cyno thing is a bit.... stupid... I mean, this one item that stands between holding or loosing your space. What AAA did in KOS space was/is a perfect example of this. If I look at this POS warfare thing, its only needed to 'own' a station and to be able to setup jumpbridges. I say, remove all the stations and introduce different types of stations alliances and coorps can build that can be destroyed by others. This makes for much more fun... alliances and coorps can deploy in secret a station behind enemy lines and start killing from there. Others need to keep scouting 'their' space just to check if others didn't deploy their station anywhere. The whole spam enough posses to get sov just stupid... remove all 'NPC' stations from 0.0 and let the alliances build and deploy their own which can be shot down by the enemy.
Parasite S Quatidion The OSS	Posted - 2008.01.28 09:12:00 - [35] you people who think cpu would solve the problem. would it be a really tough act for the defender to unanchor and anchor it at another pos? --------------- DON'T troll me
Laboratus Gallente BGG Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.01.28 10:08:00 - [36] Very well written op. I agree with covert op cynos not being restricted by jammers, since they are not quite the same thing. A cpu requirement and/or reducing hp while making it possible to anchor multiple cynojammers could be good, but it would seriously increase pos and cyno jam. Some systems have dozens of moons, in worst case scenarios you would have to take out that many. I disagree with: Forcing attackers and defenders to fight at bottlenecks to be a problem. Added stability and need for effort and will to take down resources to be a problem. One of the biggest problems with todays pos warefare is the simple hp etc design of poses. Originally poses were balanced around the idea, that a large alliance could field around ten maybe twenty caps. Today all established even small alliances can do that. Newer ones can't simply because training up those ships take so long. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
CobraBytez GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.28 10:16:00 - [37] Originally by: Lowanaera Originally by: Scavok In comparison, the cyno jammer POS we took down in 25S (everything faction) had something like 35 medium guns, 5 small guns, 8 ECM, 5 warp disruptors, several webs, and always 10-15 gunners. That is absurd. In order to evaluate the situation, we need to deal with realities, not exaggerations. Such a fitting simply isn't possible, even if you use an Amarr tower (most grid) fitted entirely with Domi ACs (least grid), which will have mediocre DPS, poor alpha, and cannot hit snipers. A typical fully armed faction cynojam tower like the much vaunted one in FSW has a mix of 20-25 med beams and arties plus a minor amount of tackle and small guns, and is heavily dependent on support from good suicidal dictor and inty pilots to catch properly aligning sniper BS, as it is alpha and good gunner coordination that is the real danger. You're wrong. The POS can have any number anchored but only a certain number onlined at a time. Scavok's memory is correct.
steveid SkyMarshal Logistics	Posted - 2008.01.28 10:31:00 - [38] Originally by: Scavok Edited by: Scavok on 28/01/2008 03:27:24 From a lot of experience, a faction fit cyno jammer POS with coordinating gunners requires at least 30-40 (depending on amount of ECM modules) battleships that are specifically fit with at least 5 armor tanking mods, fit for heavy remote armor repping (which means cap mods in the mids), and a Damnation giving very good armor resist bonuses. Without the Damnation, the BS with 5 or 6 lows will be killed the second they're targeted, and some of the better tanked ships with 7 or 8 lows will last until the second salvo, but usually it's between the 2nd and 3rd salvo that the first rep cycle finishes. This is because of the time it takes the person to broadcast, the ships to lock, and the hp is transfered at the end of the cycle for armor. And this is with no resistance besides POS gunners, which are easily trained on alt accounts and placed in various strategic systems that are likely to be attacked. When the POS are defended by even a token force and gunners, it is simply impossible. Even BoB can attest to this given their performance in FSW against Paxton Alliance. The ship setups required to do it without suiciding 50+ BS are completely gimped for PVP. There are no subcapitals that can deal with this scenario in any acceptable fashion. The best solution I can think of would be requiring far more grid, such that you need a faction POS and faction modules if you want to fit ~15 medium guns. That would be enough such that you couldn't alpha tanked battleships, but still have a significant advantage for any fleet engagement. In comparison, the cyno jammer POS we took down in 25S (everything faction) had something like 35 medium guns, 5 small guns, 8 ECM, 5 warp disruptors, several webs, and always 10-15 gunners. That is absurd. I have no experiance in doing this myself, but wouldn't you be better with fast moving high damage frigates like ranis' or assault frigates? Large guns wouldn't track and it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper. Failing that what about using a shedload of stealth bombers. After every shot they could recloak as a large POS would I imagine take so long to target that it would find itself unable to target anything. I think that you could probably decloak get a round off and recloak before any defending capitals, the pos and now that sensor boosters have bin nerfed most long range bs' have managed to target you. Anything smaller than that would be alphad. This ofc has the added attraction of being cheap, low skilled and has good ability to defend against both bs fleets and nanofags. As i said I may be missing fundementals here, dont flame, educate :D
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.28 10:47:00 - [39] Originally by: steveid I have no experiance in doing this myself, but wouldn't you be better with fast moving high damage frigates like ranis' or assault frigates? Large guns wouldn't track and it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper. Failing that what about using a shedload of stealth bombers. After every shot they could recloak as a large POS would I imagine take so long to target that it would find itself unable to target anything. I think that you could probably decloak get a round off and recloak before any defending capitals, the pos and now that sensor boosters have bin nerfed most long range bs' have managed to target you. Anything smaller than that would be alphad. This ofc has the added attraction of being cheap, low skilled and has good ability to defend against both bs fleets and nanofags. As i said I may be missing fundementals here, dont flame, educate :D 15 000 000 armor HP - this is what you missed. Now count pure DPS of those bombers/frigs and add 10 remote armor repping carriers (2 cap reps each) on jammer. And check how long will it take. Even 100 sniper BS (400 dps at 150km easily) prolly wont break jammer which is repped by 10-15 carriers.
Bad Borris Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.28 10:49:00 - [40] Originally by: Niding POS gunners are affected by lag like everybody else since they manually target. The POS gun advantage of targetting under massive lag only applies if the guns are controlled by POS and NOT by pos gunners. So lag defintly hurt POS gunners too, just like everyone else. I can accept that pos gunners are affected by lag but nowhere near as much as the attacking fleet. Pos gunners do not suffer warp-in lag and once they are positioned inside the pos they simply shoot the attackers forcing them to warp out and then fire on them as soon as they re-enter the fight thus maximising the possibility that they will be lagged out and unable to realign and warp out before they are toast. You guys blew up my eagle that way
Ur235 Deadly Addiction	Posted - 2008.01.28 10:58:00 - [41] I got an idea. How about at the pos when a jammer is onlined it takes up all the cpu and powergrid, so the guns and what not cant be onlined while the jammer is onlined. And they will have to comit there own fleet to defend the cynojammer and not just gunners in pos's Or they can just use the guns but the cynojammer can not be onlined as the guns take up all the powergrid and cpu instead, so they wud have to defend the pos with alot as caps can jump in and everything
Laboratus Gallente BGG Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.01.28 11:09:00 - [42] Out of enemy prime time op will restrict use of remote rep quite a bit. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Ludovicus Baekelandt Illuminati Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.28 11:12:00 - [43] This might sound stupid but what about a jammer you can deploy in the system that will jam the cyno jammer. I would say it would have to be relatively fragile and take a reasonably long time to put online so the defenders have time to destroy it. Maybe something fitted to a ship like the cyno field generator but with enough cpu, powergrid requirements that it has to be fitted on a special ship and not just any firgate.
G0rF Gallente The Causality Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.01.28 12:20:00 - [44] My solution: Jammer Pods. In order to Cyno-Jam a system, a Jammer pod should be placed (instead of POS) at more than [pre-determined percentage] of the moons in a system, creating a network of jammers, when this number drops below [pre-determined percentage] of moons in a system occupied by Jammer Pods, Cyno Jamming stops. Jammer Pods would act as micro-POSs, with CPU and PG for a few medium turrets and no reinforced mode (so they can be taken down in one attack), and be within the ability of a reasonable sized group of Battleships to destroy. Cyno Jammer Pods would alert POS managers / caretakers should they come under attack. Cyno Jammers should not prevent Covert Cynos. This would allow defenders to Jam their systems to prevent capital incursion, and maintain jamming by means of regular refuelling patrols. This would allow attackers to insert medium sized sub-capital groups to various points in a system and attack multiple targets simultaneously, splitting up both attacking and defending fleets, discouraging blobbing. All that said, I don't believe for a second that this concept hasn't already been examined and dismissed by CCP as a 'But no-one would split 50 Battleships into several groups and attack simultaneously, they'd just stay in a blob and go round the system knocking out one at a time'. Who knows, but thanks to the OP for keeping this debate alive, it certainly needs looking at. Originally by: Ur235 How about at the pos when a jammer is onlined it takes up all the cpu and powergrid, so the guns and what not cant be onlined while the jammer is onlined. And they will have to comit there own fleet to defend the cynojammer and not just gunners in pos's I'm also liking this very simple idea.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2008.01.28 12:22:00 - [45] Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time: - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome

Thargat Caldari North Star Networks Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:06:00 - [46] An edition to previous suggestions. Change the system in wich jammers work. Instead of blocking the ability to set up cynofields they should instead increase the ammount of fuel a cap-ship jumping into system requires for the actual jump. Also the jammers should burn fuel while on-line. Say that one cynojammer increases the fuel ammount required by a cap jumping in (or a jump portal or bridge) by 5k isotopes. 2 Jammers increase it by 10k and so forth (or maybe percentage, nrs aren't important since it's just a suggestion). This would of course require that several jammers could be activated at the same time. The HP of the jammers would have to be lowered to counter balance the fact that more than 1 jammer could be operating in a system at once. So a system defended by only 1 jammer would increase the isotope amount required by caps to jump in(effectivly decreasing their range) but not stop capitals from entering completely. Carriers from nearby systems (flown by pilots with sufficient jumpfuel skills) would still be able to enter the system but those further away would require a refueling stop close to the target system (possibly also refueling jump-strong dreads that are along for the action). This would allow an alliance to on-line one or two jammers to prevent hostile caps from long-jumping into their midst (some systems will be better suited for this than others) or bring all the jammers on-line to effectivly shut the system down for a limited period of time (afterall, if jammers eat fuel then it'd be hard to keep them going forever). Last: For this to work then jump portal and jump bridges would have to be affected in the same way as normal jumpdrives. There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius.
Djuma Nihilist Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:11:00 - [47] Originally by: CCP Greyscale - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) Loving it. Especially the idea of the offensive cyno
JSB	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:13:00 - [48] its a lot of work to keep all this pos'es online and i think its ok when the deffender has some "bonuses". and like others said: when somebody really want to take down the jammer, then its not a problem (look tri vs -y- or cva, and ithink the -y- cyno jammer pos was really damn good: perfect pos structures and good gunners... and? tri took it down). there is allready so much to fuel up and stuff, so i don't think system jammers needs a fuel consumation too. there should be some benefit when you do all the work to keep up the sov. atleast you know no capitals will cyno in, or huge fleets will pass all the gates with this black-ops thing. just my .02 isk
The Cosmopolite Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:43:00 - [49] Edited by: The Cosmopolite on 28/01/2008 13:43:21 Originally by: CCP Greyscale Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time: - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome These all seem reasonable changes to consider, with the first one being a must, in my opinion, and the others, alone or in combination, desirable to bring balance to the cyno jamming mechanics. Thank you for the response. Thanks also to those who have replied so far. Cosmo The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Louis DelaBlanche Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:56:00 - [50] blobs were used to destroy towers before cyno jammers, theyll still be used if cyno jammers are removed/made weaker/whatever. Cyno Jammer may have made big subcap blobs more necessary, but they havent, imo, made alliances any more inclined to throw every member they can muster into the system theyre targetting. Its been that way at least since the EC- Siege.
Edvard Bleth Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2008.01.28 13:56:00 - [51] CCP made it clear that if one wanted to take down a Sov 3 system one needs to move in and take the time to do it properly. Sov 3 systems were never meant to be taken over easily. The alliance claiming Sov 3 has typically put a great deal of work into getting that Sov claim. In my view the cyno jammer represents a heavily fortified defensive position. However, there are ways to deal with a cyno jammer / shredder POS . Hopefully black ops will use a different signature or some other mechanism to distinguish them from capital ships to get by cyno jammers. EB
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.28 14:01:00 - [52] It has been my opinions since these things were introduced to the game that they should be a form of outpost service not a POS module. The service could provide a certain range in LY in exchange for fueling. Reduction in distance of the Cyno Jammer range would equal less fuel consumption. The range would be limited in effect to where you have a Cyno Jammer Relay which requires Soverignty to establish. This could be a POS module or an anchoured structure in it's own right much like was put forward above by G0rF. My 2p worth anyway. ---
Kaylana Syi Minmatar Stimulus	Posted - 2008.01.28 14:31:00 - [53] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time: - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome Greyscale thank you very much for letting us know you guys are thinking about this. It made my entire month. -I think that allowing Covert Cyno's to operate in cyno-jammed systems is definately needed. No ifs-ands-buts about it. Black Ops are simply rubbish as it stands when you start to figure jump range and jammers into the forumula. I'd also ask for another .5 ly to the BO base jump range but even that would not be as essential as cyvert cyno's being allowed in jammed systems. Please, make it happen ASAP! -Fitting requirements: Not really sure about this one. Been a while since I was in Territory claiming/defending mode. I can definitely see a problem with them being allowed to work while the POS is in reinforced. Furthermore, they have a bit too much HP. Maybe reduce them by 33%. -Jammer Fuel? Not sure if it would be necessary if they couldn't be used in reinforced as well as them having reduced HP. -Jammer disabling jump bridges? This is probably a good idea in the long run. Right now the defender has too many options available to restrict AND control access to their region. The synergy of defensive POS modules are definitely imbalanced in that respect. -Offensive cyno generator? No thanks. I think this is overdoing things a bit. Right now defenders have a stranglehold that is imbalanced by module synergy. Balance the synergy to make it fair to both sides, not make new modules and mechanics that you can't remove and have to further balance down the road. Team Minmatar
Spoon Thumb Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:12:00 - [54] Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 28/01/2008 15:12:51 Originally by: CCP Greyscale - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome Sub 24 hour? I get the impression you are trying to get less people to spam POS by making them ludicrously time consuming. Refuel every 8 hours is equivalent to saying "not allowed unless you really really value the system or have no life Separate fuel bay makes sense, if you have to refuel once every few days or once a week (as is the case with jump bridges) Remember, that these changes will encourage even more the sort of mega-alliances we see at the moment as smaller alliances with less man-power will not be able to hold all the systems they currently have If you allow more people access to cyno jammer because it needs constant refuelling, it will increase chance of 1 spy purposely sabotaging. Equals more paranoia and less trust within alliances as well as encourage altage. I think spying and sabotage is fine, but it totally breaks immersion when the throw away alt is trashed out of existance and there is no way to find out the person behind it (where in RL you'd at least be able to trace associates and shady meetings / deals, phone calls etc to trace back). Also it isn't very realistic nor exciting if every spy dies shortly after completing their first and only mission. Maybe an option to block employment history to others? But back on topic, I understand the op's frustration with the system and yes I have a vested interest in defending it. But really, sub 24 hours? The other knock on consequences of nerfing cyno jammers could be that cap blobbing increases and everyone just races to cap ships, and that the current 0.0 holding alliances that can maintain their cyno jammer network become even more entrenched, squashing those that can't afford to refuel every 8 hours I think changing cyno jammers is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. What we really need is a complete revamp of POS. I think it is time to admit they are unrealistic, create more problems than they are really worth (bugs, time consuming as hell, blobbing, frustrations like the op's and so on), and need to be done away with Though other changes mentionned (sub 24 aside) could be a reasonable short term fix Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists Recruiting
Bane Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:23:00 - [55] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time: - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome I'm likin' those ideas so far, though I'm not sure if I understand the refueling bit. You would have to refuel the cyno jammer within a time period or else you wouldn't be able to turn it back on again, or at least until you rep the tower?
Niding Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:25:00 - [56] Edited by: Niding on 28/01/2008 15:26:30 Jammers using CPU doesnt sound like the best of ideas. Lets face it, an attacker usually are able to take down a jammer/blocade the system before a defender are able to summon a halfdecent defense force. Its when the POS's comes out of reeinforced the REAL battle starts, and if the jammer is down due to CPU usage, its all about Capital Online. You can fill a system with people but it wont help much if the hostiles bring 70-100 capitals. Such numbers are not unrealistic these days. A large POS can easily be 1 cycled down even with the dread squads mid sized alliances can summon. If a system is important enough, sacrificing a couple of dreads on a agressive POS attack is worth it if you claim a Outpost/knock down SOV levels. Also remember, once a system looses sov 3 it wont have jamming capability for 3 (or more?) weeks. Changes are good, but there has to be a fine balance so you dont turn EVE into Capital Griefing Online.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:29:00 - [57] Edited by: Kerfira on 28/01/2008 15:32:26 Originally by: CCP Greyscale Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time: - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome TBH, I can't really see much wrong with the current implementation of the cyno jammers within the context of the current (fubahr'd) POS sovereignty system. Basing sov on POS is just WAY too simple as it focuses only on one aspect of warfare, "who can kill POS", which is essentially just a numbers game, and nothing on skills (which is different from skill points), abilities, dedication and stamina. The attacker already has a quite strong advantage in being able to choose time and place, and with todays 40+ dread fleets being relatively common, stront timing is not at all effective. If the stront timing fails, then the attacker will have way too large an advantage. Having a cyno jammer online gives the defender that bit of extra time to defend his system (ie time stront), and it provides a sort of 'defensive ground' where the defender gets an advantage. The taking of territory should be hard and costly, especially against a prepared enemy. It also works as a pretty good protection for smaller/weaker alliances who'd all too easy get run over by someone bigger. Really, the only REAL argument brought up in this thread against cyno jammers is: "Wah! We want to take enemy systems without losses!" The problems with POS warfare is not in the cyno jammers, but in three other areas: 1. Servers not able to cope with blobbing. 2. CCP (by game design) having made blobbing THE tactic in EVE. 3. Timezones. These three in conjunction cause the problems. The "Bring Moar Ships" (deliberately misspelled) tendency should NOT be an I-Win button as it is today. It is also fueled by the fact that POS battles happen in a very short window of time, which then ensures that everyone brings all they can in that small window. It would be FAR better if sov determination was done over time instead of during those small windows where blobbing inevitably wins. I made a suggestion a while ago in another thread that the current sov mechanics should be replaced completely by a system that didn't rely on single small-time-window battles of POS, but which focused on who did activities in an area over time. Killing ships in an area would earn you sov, doing other (industrial) stuff would earn sov etc (incl. putting up and taking down POS, but these would be purely industrial structures). Sov of a constellation would then be determined over a period of maybe 1-2 months, enabling a reasonable amount of stability, and requiring an attacker to 'siege' the constellation (and win the fights) over a period of time. This would also mean that alliances could not just send all their troops to attack, but would also need to defend their home areas. All in all, I think it would make for a more stable, less blobby, EVE universe. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:41:00 - [58] I have said this before and I will say it again no doubt: The defender - who has invested BILLIONS in building up the infrastructure and defences of their territory - should have the advantage. As Niding said earlier in this thread it should require complete and total COMMITMENT and willingness to accept losses to WIN sovereignty. The changes proposed in my opinion will simply lead to the demolition of smaller alliances by capital blobs. It is possible now to 'reduce' cynojammers. They do not make systems impregnable - but they do give the advantage to the defender - which is as it should be. Cosmo mentioned attackers needing two bites at the cynojammer cherry. The initial attack and then the follow up. I just want to address this: The attacker has a huge element of surprise in the initial assault. Very few alliances really know where and when an attack is expected and the chances of them having POS gunners ready and waiting at each cynojammer POS for an initial is immensely slim. In addition to this the attacker - with the element of advance warning and organisation - usually has an overwhelming fleet for this assault and also - if they have prepared well - can limit the defenders ability to get POS gunners in (if they do things properly). I am not going into specifics here as no point giving our enemies free information but there is a lot of tactics which can severely hinder the Defenders opportunity to defend. In addition we have already seen fleets of +150 snipers that can reduce a cynojammer within TEN minutes. If this fleet is well lead with decent warp in/warp out and remote rep strategies losses for this initial assault can be minimised to pretty much zero. While the op proposes that Defenders only have a single 'hardpoint' on which to concentrate defence this is simply incorrect - particularly on this first attack. So as you can see there is LITTLE to NO advantage to the defender of having an intact cynojammer for this first assault - apart from dissuading disorganised (or small) groups from griefing cynojammers at every opportunity. Now lets move on to the 'follow up' phase. Now according to the op this is when the 'Defenders' enjoy their true advantge and congregate at their cynojammer hardpoint for its unassailable defence. Right? Wrong! If said assaulting alliance (or group of alliances) was truly committed to capturing the system they would not have allowed the defenders the opportunity to: a) Repair the cynojammer or establish a new one b) Allow the defending forces to establish themselves in the system Yes, these are tough things to do - but not impossible (as others have shown) for people dedicated to a goal. Which highlights my initial point about commitment. Take for example the recent siege of XR. Triumvirate could have held onto the system for the two days between reinforcement and when towers came out of siege. Instead they cynoed out their caps and left the system vacant allowing the Defenders to organise things. There was minimal harrassment and in Tri had been truly committed they could have logged their caps already in system. On the day the towers came out CVA and friends (the Defenders) started our op EIGHT hours before the first tower came out of reinforced because we knew that the moment the Cynojammer fell we would be **** by a giant capital blob. The attacker has to be willing to put their time and ships on the line to prevent an ORGANISED Defender from kicking making life painful for them. If they are not fully willing (or able) to commit the necessary resources then they shouldn't be trying. I personally do not see a problem with the current system. It is possible for attackers to *** cynojammed systems (as is demonstrated regularly) but only if they put their balls on the lines which is how it should be - after all the Defender has invested heavily in the infrastructure and defences. It should not be easy! ------------------------------
Centra Spike Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:46:00 - [59] Originally by: Kerfira Sov of a constellation would then be determined over a period of maybe 1-2 months, enabling a reasonable amount of stability, and requiring an attacker to 'siege' the constellation (and win the fights) over a period of time. This would also mean that alliances could not just send all their troops to attack, but would also need to defend their home areas. All in all, I think it would make for a more stable, less blobby, EVE universe. Moving sovereignty away from POS (not completely) would be great. I mean, how legitimate is your sovereignty if a nano-gang can run amok through your systems uncontested? Yes, obviously there is a timezone implement involved and I'm not saying that Sov should swing over a few months of nano-raids, but there needs to be more incentive to defend your system from attacks other than just large-scale POS assaults. >Truth conquers all chains.
Bobby Atlas Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.28 15:46:00 - [60] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Things already being considered (that I'm aware of) for the next time we revisit these structures, although not necessarily all at the same time: - Allowing Covert Cynos to operate in cyno-jammed systems - Increasing fitting requirements - Making jammers burn their own fuel in addition to fitting, probably with a sub-24h refuelling period (my current favourite number is eight hours) - Cyno jammers disabling jump bridges in the system - An "offensive" cyno generator array that can be onlined without sov, but takes 24h+ to online, and is not affected by jammers (idea (c) CCP Bettik) I'll keep an eye on this thread for a few days; if people can avoid CAODifying it that would be excellent. Additional ideas welcome I think the only viable comment there is the fitting change, by no means burden us with more fueling of structures. In the last many months ccp has made the game less fun by introducing more time sinks for alliances by virtue of outpost services requiring repairs, pos weapons requiring repairs, nerfing carrier logistics and so on; the time sinks required for 0.0 alliances to sustain them self are now at a level never before heard of [and before some considered 0.0 life a chore of responsibility akin almost to a second job]. Further the rest of your comments would simply eliminate the risk:reward scale of things right now - yes you can contend jammers are over powered but when you take into account WHAT THEY ARE PROTECTING; 25bn outpost, a constellation, assets within that constellation, assets within those outposts, assets within the respective pos's. It was previously a state where when you get out-blobbed you lose where-as now the defenders at least have tools at our disposal to inflict some if at least moderate damage upon the enemy before space is lost. I think it is enormously important that the risk vs reward balance be maintained and the simple act of requiring jammers to use a bit of cpu and possibly some other SMALL and MODERATE changes would be in order. However the 'ideas' ccp is considering by your statement are neither moderate nor small; some are drastic and only burden more time from already time deprived 0.0 life.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.