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)
Depp Knight Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.10 15:43:00 - [241] Did everyone forget that you guys actually took down our cyno jammer in nol? What has changed?
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.10 15:48:00 - [242] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/03/2008 15:49:40 The Cyno Jammer is doing its job perfectly. It clearly shows that if you want to attack a cynojammer system, you take the jammer out first and bring caps in before the defenders get a chance to organise their caps into position. If you have enough time to drop dozens of pos's, you have more than enough time to knock out a jammer. The NOL system attack proves this. This works against the concept of mass pos spamming quite well, because if you dont attack the jammer first to get capitals in and just pos spam, then good luck trying to kill the defernders capitals. I mean, even a kid can understand this. I thank CCP for making random POS spam tactics useless due to Cynojammers, which support organised defenders rather than pos spamming crews -- Billion Isk Mission
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.03.10 15:57:00 - [243] Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Guys, guys, clearly having multiple titans defending a cynojammed system isn't a realistic idea and hasn't actually occured within the past week on tranquility. Ehem, is there a rule in EVE that you HAVE to attack the system that's defended by said titans? Why not attack somewhere else? It is generally NOT sound military strategy to attack where your opponent is strong! You attack where he is weak! So, you pick another target. Go in fast and heavy with your BS fleet and knock out the cyno jammer there, bring in your caps and start sieging and leave them in system. When the towers come out of reinforced, your cap fleet is already there and it doesn't matter if the jammer is back up. As an alternative, you can commit enough forces to control the system totally until the towers come out. Basically its a matter of commitment, where it seems that the people complaining over cyno jammers are people who don't like to commit resources to a battle and maybe risk loosing ships Or said another way, the people who go "Wha, wha! Our uber-blob can't win with the current rules! CCP, change the game!" I find it pretty pathetic to be quite honest...... EVE would be a terribly boring game if it was just about gathering the biggest fleet.... 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.
Kerdrak 3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.10 16:41:00 - [244] Very easy solution to cynojammer/titans: make cynojammer to offline when a doomsday device hits it (online offline it, no need of destroying it). ________________________________________
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.10 17:19:00 - [245] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 10/03/2008 17:19:51 Let's explore this "unconqurable" system of yours dtee. So there's 4 titans in a cynojammed system, with a bunch of carriers and MS to rep the jammer in between DD rounds (30 minute timeframe, as dual DD is the absolute minimum required) and at least a decent sized fleet to stop you from warping out all the time and to nuke your anti-carrier/ms spidertank tactics (say, 30 bs plus 20 assorted support and pos gunners). That is the absolute minimum you'd require to stop a full-sized attack. You require these 4 titans, 20ish caps and 50 other pilots there 23/7, outside as well as inside your main alliance timezone. You would also require this in every cynojammed system you want to be defending. So tell me, with 8 titans in total, how many systems can this fictuous alliance of yours defend at the same time exactly ? You know, we know, goons know, that the only reason we can do this is because they fail to bring it without us seeing it coming a mile away, and without using the tactics required to reduce our defense advantage enough. It is in no way impossible to get your capfleet into a cynojammed system by taking down the jammer, even if the enemy has a bunch of titans. [center] Old blog
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.10 17:37:00 - [246] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/03/2008 17:38:11 Edited by: Lord WarATron on 10/03/2008 17:37:40 Originally by: Kerdrak Very easy solution to cynojammer/titans: make cynojammer to offline when a doomsday device hits it (online offline it, no need of destroying it). No point. The whole issue with cyno jammer is that it is a very effective anti-pos spam tool. Cynojammer + titans means that the attacker who just pos spam with no intention of a real fight and hoping to win on a technicality can no longer do so. It forces both sides to commit to the fight and forces the attackers bring their caps in and keep them. The only people who are complaining are pos spammers or those that have little intention of using capitals vs capitals. The counter to Titan is called a Dreadnaught and they work pretty well. I cannot understand how people can pos spam with "8 titans" in system 23/7, yet complain about the Jammer. Where was the 8 Titans when 10+ pos's get spammed? Just think about it. -- Billion Isk Mission
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.10 18:02:00 - [247] What I like most about not allowing cyno jammers and jump bridges in the same system is that you are forced to make choices based on trade-offs with regards to solar systems that you control. There are presently not that many decisions one makes with regards to the space that you control. I'd really like to see more trade-offs. Imagine if you had to choose between a jump bridge, a cyno jammer, or other modules (+5% mining yield to all in system or something else fun). Sort of global effects for the whole system, but you could only pick one.

CCP Mitnal	Posted - 2008.03.10 18:09:00 - [248] Cleaned The request to keep this non-CAOD was a reasonable one, any subsequent off-topic discussion surrounding the motives for change, the current state of the Southern War or anything "CAODified" will be met with warnings. Mitnal, Community Representative EVE Online CCP Games Email/Netfang Wrangler made me do it. ~Saint

Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.10 18:41:00 - [249] Originally by: Kerdrak Very easy solution to cynojammer/titans: make cynojammer to offline when a doomsday device hits it (online offline it, no need of destroying it). Except that this solution leaves any and all attackers without a Titan totally at a loss. I think all of the decent, objective views of the Cynojammer in this thread are in agreement: cyno jammers should not be allowed to simultaneously silence all capital movements indefinitely and sit in POSes that can easily ravage enormous battleship fleets. There are all kinds of viable changes that could be made: 1. Decrease cynojammer HP to improve destructibility and make BS fleet attacks more viable. 2. Increase cynojammer fitting to lessen shredder POS defenses and make BS fleet attacks more viable. 3. Require constant fueling of cynojammers to restrict 23/7 operation. 4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours. 5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective. 6. Create anchorable, offensive cyno generators unaffected by cynojammers to facilitate the "siege" process. 7. Allow black ops covert cynos in cynojammed systems to permit for usefulness of the black ops hull and improved skirmish abilities in cynojammed, jumpbridged systems. 8. Limit cynojammers to a number of sovereign systems per constellation so that only key systems can be so utterly defended. 9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals. 10. Make cynojammers use CPU so reinforced towers do not continue to provide cynojamming. Certainly not just one but a combination of these changes are in order.
Kaylana Syi Minmatar Stimulus The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.10 18:50:00 - [250] To TWD and the others in BoB, It is great that you guys have effectively used cyno jammers, titans and jump bridges at the massive war that has dozens of alliances fighting in it. But please remember this game mechanic also forces brute force at the smaller border disputes to require massive numbers as well. If BoB can stop alliances making progress than what can an alliance of 500 do to an alliance of 200? If you consider what is happening out in Providence there is just no room for cyno jammers and jump bridges to function at the same time. It is a vice grip mechanic that will always allow forces to gather out of your reach and spring on top of you at a moments notice. Capitals being only available to one side with no penalty. Also it takes away guerrilla warfare using covert ops, black ops, stealth bombers and recon ships out of the equasion on a massive galactic scale since most of 0.0 is not accessible to them geographically AND because of the pos mechanics of jammers. Cyno jammers just have too many pro's and not enough con's. This needs to be changed for the entirety of EVE at every level. Jump Bridges and Cyno's being not being able to be used at the same time and covert cyno generators able to be active in jammed systems are severely needed at minimum. A minimum I'd happily take until the entire POS mechanic is overhauled. EVE needs tangible goals for both sides to any equation. Killmails only go so far and can be had in empire. When suicide ganking in empire starts producing tangible results to people more than long term roaming campaigns in 0.0 there is a problem with empire building. Team Minmatar
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.10 19:13:00 - [251] Originally by: Kaylana Syi To TWD and the others in BoB, It is great that you guys have effectively used cyno jammers, titans and jump bridges at the massive war that has dozens of alliances fighting in it. But please remember this game mechanic also forces brute force at the smaller border disputes to require massive numbers as well. If BoB can stop alliances making progress than what can an alliance of 500 do to an alliance of 200? May be, but if not even BoB can stop an enemy with greater numbers, because every advantage that goes past counting the numbers on each side gets nerfed in name of the smaller conflict, how will any alliance ever do so ? Cynijammers are not the issue themelves. Maybe indeed the deathstar pos's they get anchored at are. However, with black ops, small gang warfare et all they have nothign at all to do. Cynojammers are a territorial warfare thing only. If you want to be able to use black ops in cynojammed system then by all mean amend black op cynos so thaqt they can still operate in jammed systems. However, if you disallow the cynojammer as defensive measure we are back at square one in the ****** up pos warfare game, where numbers are everything and wars are fought in timezones rather then battles. [center] Old blog
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:21:00 - [252] Originally by: Vitrael I think all of the decent, objective views of the Cynojammer in this thread are in agreement: cyno jammers should not be allowed to simultaneously silence all capital movements indefinitely and sit in POSes that can easily ravage enormous battleship fleets. There are all kinds of viable changes that could be made: There are some pretty good suggestions in this list. Quote: 1. Decrease cynojammer HP to improve destructibility and make BS fleet attacks more viable. Possible, although that makes it even easier for defenders to rep up their disabled jammer (or even blow it up and fit a new one) before the attacker can take full advantage. Giving the jammer less shield/armour HP and a vast amount of structure would at least reduce the 'blow up old jammer, anchor a replacement' trick and force the defender to carry out repairs. Quote: 2. Increase cynojammer fitting to lessen shredder POS defenses and make BS fleet attacks more viable. This is good, although it hints at a wider issue in EVE of the omni-POS. Like ships, POSs should be built to specialise in their assigned task and not fitted with everything and the kitchen sink. A cyno jammer (or for that matter jump bridges, moon mining equipment, cyno generators, CHAs or SMAs) should take up a more significant slice of available resources rather than leave space for huge stacks of hardeners and guns. Quote: 3. Require constant fueling of cynojammers to restrict 23/7 operation. Not so convinced here, it only takes 1 logistics guy to sit at the POS in an Iteron V full of ozone feeding the module, and most large alliances can spare at least one player for this around the clock. Its also one of those proposals which would make the game even less fun for the poor sap on cyno fuelling duty, and I'm not convinced that actively pushing logistics players to quit the game and/or kill themselves is the right approach to game balance! Quote: 4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours. Could work, but somewhat dependant on the timezone meta-game - for example a Euro-heavy alliance fighting against a US-heavy alliance can just time their cyno to operate during US primetime, whereas for two alliances operating in the same timezone this would be less effective. Quote: 5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective. Having them anchored at planets/safespots/the system star, you mean? Odd but workable. Might be a little too favourable for the attacker though if the defender has to watch the jammer 23/7. Quote: 9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals. Alternatively, stop capships from using jumpbridges (freighters would be an exception) and write up some technobabble explanation about jump drive - enabled ships being adversely affected by using jump bridges other than their own. Maybe this hurts things like Blackops BSs a little but the previously mentioned suggestion that covert cynos would be unaffected by cyno jammers would reduce the effect of this. As an additional thought, how about an active cyno jammer preventing doomsdays? The fact that the doomsday used to require a cyno for remote activation means there's some precedent for technobabble explanations about a DD involving some sort of cyno-like effect in its activation and justifying it being inhibited by the jammer. Quote: 10. Make cynojammers use CPU so reinforced towers do not continue to provide cynojamming. Yeah this is one pretty much everyone can agree on, I think. -----------
NightKhaos Gallente Khaos Wielders	Posted - 2008.03.10 23:55:00 - [253] Edited by: NightKhaos on 10/03/2008 23:55:58 Originally by: Sha4d13 Edited by: Sha4d13 on 10/03/2008 11:06:37 Originally by: NightKhaos Edited by: NightKhaos on 10/03/2008 10:52:42 I apoligise as I have no read this topic in the entirety. As such I am not sure what has been discussed previously. My take on the issue: Reduce the range of Cyno jammers to about 2 A.U, make them independent of POS, and give them less HP. This means in order to jam a system you have to put a full "grid" of cyno jams over the entire system. This would allow attackers to jump captials in, but only if they have a scout team in system looking for an unjammed point. Which gives the defender time to neutralize the scout team It would also allow the defends to set a "jump point" in the middle of nowhere, where they send a small ship with a cyno field generator using a bookmark, and fleets can jump into there. What do you think? Cant see how that would assist at all tbh. Either- it would make jammers useless, as it would be impossible to cover a whole system. Or it would be just another enormous timesink / chore setting them up and fuelling them. As for a scout team- there are constantly hostiles in these systems, often cloaked. So thats hardly a challenge! That was my point. Make it impossible the defend every corner of your system. Yes I know, it seems an extremist solution, but if you take in context of the idea in my signature it makes sense. And even without corp owned stargates, it could achieve the balance this entire thread has been trying to achieve. Although, after reading some of the posts, I am tarting to think I should have left my mouth shut and let the big boys argue it out. Better ideas have been suggested, like the cyno jam field also blocking bridges. :) Reshape EVE for the future! Sell the 0.0 gates to player owned corps, and encourage an open ended universe.
JabJabVVV Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.11 01:05:00 - [254] The 'issue' of cyno jammers is quite a complex one. As far as I can see there is no definitive answer as to whether they are 'overpowered' or not (I suspect this is why there are so many different viewpoints voiced in this thread). The power of the cyno jammer is quite a strong element in determining the balance of power between defender and attacker so before you even begin to address how you want the cyno jammer to behave you should consider how you want the balance of power between defender and attacker to look. At the moment the cyno jammer affects the balance of power in different ways depending upon the situation: 1) If the cyno jammer can be brought down quickly, before the defender can respond then the jammer provides little cost or benefit to either side (e.g an overstretched alliance spanning more systems than they can easily defend). 2) If the cyno jammer is defended by an organised alliance covering a small area of space then the defender has a reasonably large advantage as it will be difficult to bring down the jammer before the defender can respond. 3) If the attacker is not very big and the defender is organised then the defender has a large advantage due to the power of the 'deathstar' POS that the jammer is anchored at (a faction deathstar POS is lethal to small and medium battleship groups even if it is not fully gunned). points 1 and 2 lead to a situation where an overstretched or weaker alliance will not gain much benefit from cyno jammers as they will not be able to defend them (see the fall of Querious or Period Basis for examples of where cyno jammers have been little help) however if a powerful alliance is pushed back into their core systems then the cyno jammer provides a reasonable advantage (see the defence of Delve for an example of this). To me this seems a good situation, it means that 0.0 territorial warfare can be fluid and dynamic when outlying territories are contested but to actually finally evict an organised alliance from 0.0 completely then you must be prepared to put in maximum effort... it stops Eve being like that well known board game 'risk' where the winner is decided in the first 10% of the game and the final 90% is just spent clearing up. The third point seems, to me at least, not to be so ideal. However I think the issue here is more to do with POS (specifically faction fitted POS) than the cyno jammer itself. A fully gunned, faction fitted deathstar POS is very difficult to attack with BS but when there is a cyno jammer in system you are forced to do more or less exactly that. Increasing the grid requirement of cyno jammers and faction guns would alleviate this problem but still maintain the dynamic created by points 1 and 2. ----------- When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.
JabJabVVV Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.11 01:06:00 - [255] Apart from that, the rest of the thread is basically arguing over semantics. Decreasing the jammer hitpoints: not a great idea imo; A jammer will go down in around 15 minutes to a group of 50 BS as it is, any less and it becomes difficult for even an organised defender to arrange a defence (and so the module becomes pointless as it is destroyed without gaining any benefit) Increase cyno jammer fitting: I think this is worth looking at (as illustrated above) Constant fuelling: A terrible idea, more grinding and tedium that would disproportionately affect smaller corps and alliances. Disallow 23/7 operation: A rubbish idea, what would be the point of having a jammer at all? Also it would encourage TZ warfare and alarm clock ops. Disassociate jammers from POS to create a medium gang objective... Like station services? I have no doubt it would be equally as rewarding. Offensive cyno generators: what would be the point of a cyno jammer if your enemy can simply bypass it without even fighting? The Jammer would inconvenience you while you weren't under attack but not your opponent when he finally attacks you. This structure would put the onus of attacking structures immediately on the defender rather than on the attacker, that doesn't make sense to me. Allow black ops to use cyno jammed systems: I don't have much experience of black ops but this seems like a reasonable proposal. Cause cyno jammers to disable jump bridges: That would seem to remove pretty much the whole point of cyno jammers. If you canÆt get in cap ships or BS support quickly while you are defending then you are in a worse position than the attacker, the cyno jammer + bridge combo allows for better defence through moving reinforcements quickly into the system before the enemy can take down the cyno jammer and bring their own caps in. Without the jump bridge the cyno jammer is pointless. Limit cyno jammers on a constellation basis: not necessary in my opinion. Indeed the idea of jamming an entire region (at a very high cost in infrastructure and monthly fuel) so that it had to be attacked from the edge inwards kind of appeals to me (although I donÆt feel strongly on this issue). Make cyno jammers use cpu: Not a major issue, can't say it really bothers me one way or the other. If the tower is reinforced then the chances are the jammer has been bashed as well and will not be able to be re-onlined even if it is repaired. Finally I'm going to comment on the people who say it is very hard to attack a cyno jammer when there are titans present: to a degree I agree with you. To attack a deathstar + cyno jammer POS you have to change your setup and to defend against doomsdays then you have to change your setup... it's hard to do both. However I think that if cyno jammer POS were made less potent then this would be less of an issue. It is also worth remembering that titans are incredibly expensive ships (close to the cost of 1000 BS each) and cyno jammed systems are one of the few situations where they are actually useful in combat. Not covered: I think that POS in general are pretty poorly implemented, titans too for that matter. ----------- When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.
Sandy Brown Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.11 03:28:00 - [256] The star fraction guys in this thread make a good point - that while it is dificult for larger alliances to kill cyno jammers, it is impossible for smaller ones. However cyno jammers were designed to stop an even worse problem as I understand it. The stoped cap ships online where alliances would repeatedly reinforce other alliances posses outside their prime time, only to wait for a timing mistake. The problem is that cyno jammers strength is a trade off between invincibility and vulnerability for the defender. Weakening cyno jammers means that the attacker will be able to roll in, attack bring down the jammer and bring in the caps. The old problem will return. After all the attacker retains a distinct advantage in that they can choose the time and method of their attack. Perhaps a better short term comprimise does lie with weaker cyno jammers... What is needed in the long term is new pos warfare meahcanics that gives a well organised defender the chance of defending themselves, but a well organised and committed attacker a way to win soverignty.
Arturus Vex Macabre Votum Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.03.11 03:56:00 - [257] Edited by: Arturus Vex on 11/03/2008 04:00:02 I'd like to see it harder to take lots of space. I'd like to see more fractional warefare and disputed territories around. I'd like for smaller alliance to be able to compete with the big guys. I'd also like to see less lag and spend less time pos-bashing. So here's the idea: Make a specific cyno-jammer pos. This pos is a special pos that has to be placed in a dead space area (MWDs allowed, of course). Because of the nature of cynosural fields, it can only be approached in non-capitol ships (by both sides). It has enhanced defenses (which have to be fought through), and is of a much larger size than even a shredder/faction pos. These defenses, however, are spread out through multiple rooms of the dead space complex and can be completely destroyed (no re-enforced). The defenses generally consist of bunkers, turrets and generators (perhaps even minefields?). The bunkers house POS gunners, the generators power the turrets, and the turrets are turrets (turrets should have a range restriction equivalent to that of a T2 sniper-bs)... Defense in BS and below sized ships is, of course, allowed. In order to find the cyno-jammer pos, you have to use a special probe to scan out a 'rallying gate' (very expensive probe). This probe creates a warp-in to a randomly placed and created acceleration gate (this gate is unique to the prober that created it, and is destroyed after 24 hours). Advantages: 1.) Titans and capitols would still be useful in defense of systems. (gates, normal poses) 2.) Alliances are still not allowed to insta-pwn systems with 1000,0000 dreads or whatever 3.) Pos bashing in battleships might actually be interesting and tactical (rather than a remote-rep blob getting one buttoned).
HaulandHaul Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.03.11 14:17:00 - [258] Originally by: Arturus Vex Edited by: Arturus Vex on 11/03/2008 04:00:02 I'd like to see it harder to take lots of space. I'd like to see more fractional warefare and disputed territories around. I'd like for smaller alliance to be able to compete with the big guys. I'd also like to see less lag and spend less time pos-bashing. So here's the idea: Make a specific cyno-jammer pos. This pos is a special pos that has to be placed in a dead space area (MWDs allowed, of course). Because of the nature of cynosural fields, it can only be approached in non-capitol ships (by both sides). It has enhanced defenses (which have to be fought through), and is of a much larger size than even a shredder/faction pos. These defenses, however, are spread out through multiple rooms of the dead space complex and can be completely destroyed (no re-enforced). The defenses generally consist of bunkers, turrets and generators (perhaps even minefields?). The bunkers house POS gunners, the generators power the turrets, and the turrets are turrets (turrets should have a range restriction equivalent to that of a T2 sniper-bs)... Defense in BS and below sized ships is, of course, allowed. In order to find the cyno-jammer pos, you have to use a special probe to scan out a 'rallying gate' (very expensive probe). This probe creates a warp-in to a randomly placed and created acceleration gate (this gate is unique to the prober that created it, and is destroyed after 24 hours). Advantages: 1.) Titans and capitols would still be useful in defense of systems. (gates, normal poses) 2.) Alliances are still not allowed to insta-pwn systems with 1000,0000 dreads or whatever 3.) Pos bashing in battleships might actually be interesting and tactical (rather than a remote-rep blob getting one buttoned). \ U've done to much npc'ing mate
Keorythe Caldari Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.03.11 15:29:00 - [259] Quote: 1. Decrease cynojammer HP to improve destructibility and make BS fleet attacks more viable. Viable. Description explains it fairly well. Quote: 2. Increase cynojammer fitting to lessen shredder POS defenses and make BS fleet attacks more viable. Viable, to a point. A gang of 10 BS should not be able to take down this kind of module. A gang of 30 or 40 is more likely what we are looking for. The defenders who have spent months building infrastructure should have the advantage. Quote: 3. Require constant fueling of cynojammers to restrict 23/7 operation. Non-viable. This addresses nothing. It just adds more maintenance and upkeep which will be a pain to do but still very doable. Even if the fuel requirements are rediculous. Quote: 4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours. Non-viable. This only helps alliances with high and low periods of member activity. It makes a CJ not even worth putting up. Quote: 5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective. Non-viable. No structure should be defenseless. It would be akin to parking an empty Titan at a moon. Quote: 6. Create anchorable, offensive cyno generators unaffected by cynojammers to facilitate the "siege" process. Non-viable. No point in having a CJ if someone can drop an anti-CJ in some safespot without any need for a POS. We're talking about a POS structure which consumes resources 24/7 being cancelled out what is essentially a re-worked mobile warp bubble. Quote: 7. Allow black ops covert cynos in cynojammed systems to permit for usefulness of the black ops hull and improved skirmish abilities in cynojammed, jumpbridged systems. Non-viable. Does not even pertain to the cyno-jammer issue. Stop trying to fit your personal wishlists into this discussion. Quote: 8. Limit cynojammers to a number of sovereign systems per constellation so that only key systems can be so utterly defended. Non-viable. While this would allow for outer rings to be taken easier it still leaves the same problems in the core worlds. In most cases taking down a CJ from outlying areas has not posed a problem for alliances who are willing to coordinate attacks and use resources due to an enemy being spread out. This problem already manifests itself with the BoB coreworlds which are heavily defended but the outers were taken quickly. Quote: 9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals. Non-viable. Making it so that capitals cannot use jump bridges is a more viable tactic. Many areas that have CJ's already have dedicated capitals in the area. This does not negate the problem. Likewise since it is difficult to tell when a cyno is turned off it is easy for friendlies to move more capitals into an area in a quick on/off operation. Quote: 10. Make cynojammers use CPU so reinforced towers do not continue to provide cynojamming. Viable. If capitals were already allowed in system once then a cascade effect should be available later down the line. This of course would call for epic battles..and lots of lag. Quote: Certainly not just one but a combination of these changes are in order. Non-viable (minus #10). Various multiple combinations of any of these would make the cost of maintaining a CJ excessive to the point that defending group would be on the losing side of it all. Building infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the territory holders not be a major hinderance. Likewise an attacking force must be willing to dedicate a HUGE amount of resources to claim a region from another. This is not something that minor raiding alliances should be able to affect.
fuze InfoMorph Services Ltd	Posted - 2008.03.11 15:56:00 - [260] Edited by: fuze on 11/03/2008 15:58:46 Proposal Cyno Jammers shouldn't be able to jam Covert cyno's. In addition you can use Covert Cyno Jammers which require similar CPU/Power like jump bridges (and no fuel) and about same amount of Armor/Hitpoints as a Cyno Jammer. This adds an extra stage of sieging a system. Enables the defenders to cyno in coverts when the enemy is having a go at the cyno jammer and has closed down all gates. Requires more planning for the defenders as well. Good opportunity for black op ships as well. Cyno Jammers Change anchoring time from 30 min to 1hr. Give the attackers a bigger window of jumping in caps. But when the system is laggy the risk of loosing them still is there. As to the Jump Bridge When a Titan uses one the DD timer gets set and it has the cool down period for a DD. Making it harder to move around with Titans and DD in multiple systems. It requires more planning for the defenders. As to the other suggestions I don't think it would be fair nerfing it too much to favor the zerglings. Taking out cyno's should still be bloody nasty and hard.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 15:57:00 - [261] Originally by: Keorythe Quote: 4. Disallow 23/7 cynojammer operation by some on/off mechanic so cynojammers can only be used in key hours. Non-viable. This only helps alliances with high and low periods of member activity. It makes a CJ not even worth putting up. Of course it does. The original issue with sovereignty warfare is that it was too easy to drop a bazillion dreads on your enemy's POS and reinforce it again and again, so long as it was done in the timezone that the defender was weak. Then they just waited for it to come out of reinforced in a weak timezone and it was over. That's where the cynojammer came in. It was the guard dog for when master wasn't at home. The problem now is that the guard dog stands watch even when master is home, or when he's a couple doors over standing next to a jump portal. This is a real solution: the cyno jammer can only run 12 hours a day. Or maybe only 8. That way, the defending alliance can turn on their cynojammer when everyone goes beddy-bye and feel (relatively) safe, however, during their active hours they are going to fight POS warfare the good old fashioned way. Originally by: Keorythe Quote: 5. Move cynojammers away from defensive POSes entirely to improve their status as a medium gang objective. Non-viable. No structure should be defenseless. It would be akin to parking an empty Titan at a moon. Maybe I should've been more specific. I was thinking of moving cyno jammers to a new area type. Perhaps they need to be built on some kind of natural phenomena on system that can be discovered via exploration. Perhaps it can be defended with turrets to some extent. I just disagree with the mentality that the cynojammer should be attached to an uber I-sank-your-battleship POS. Originally by: Keorythe Quote: 6. Create anchorable, offensive cyno generators unaffected by cynojammers to facilitate the "siege" process. Non-viable. No point in having a CJ if someone can drop an anti-CJ in some safespot without any need for a POS. We're talking about a POS structure which consumes resources 24/7 being cancelled out what is essentially a re-worked mobile warp bubble. Cyno jammers do not require fueling. They require absolutely no attention 23/7. The offensive cyno generator would of course take time to anchor. Maybe 30 minutes, maybe an hour. It should have a reasonable amount of hitpoints and should be anchorable anywhere. After all, any place that you are cynojammed you've also got a system scanner, so it's reasonable to assume you'd have an easy time finding it. This promotes PVP away from POSes as that offensive cyno generator becomes a tactical target for the defenders and the attacking group must protect it if they want to see their capitals.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:06:00 - [262] Originally by: Keorythe Quote: 9. Cause cynojammers to disable jump bridges so cynojammed systems are not invincibly held by defending capitals. Non-viable. Making it so that capitals cannot use jump bridges is a more viable tactic. Many areas that have CJ's already have dedicated capitals in the area. This does not negate the problem. Likewise since it is difficult to tell when a cyno is turned off it is easy for friendlies to move more capitals into an area in a quick on/off operation. The fact that its difficult to see the status of a POS module is not an error in my proposal but an inherent flaw in the bad implementation of POS warfare. It needs fixin' too. I agree that capitals should not be able to use jump bridges. I still think there should be a limitation to the tonnage of ships that can suddenly appear on a battleship fleet attemping to offline a cyno. Originally by: Keorythe Quote: Certainly not just one but a combination of these changes are in order. Non-viable (minus #10). Various multiple combinations of any of these would make the cost of maintaining a CJ excessive to the point that defending group would be on the losing side of it all. Building infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the territory holders not be a major hinderance. Likewise an attacking force must be willing to dedicate a HUGE amount of resources to claim a region from another. This is not something that minor raiding alliances should be able to affect. Oh, come off it. The cost of maintaining a cynojammer is nothing. You buy it once and anchor it at your POS and it goes on its merry little way giving you complete impunity to attack. Of course building an infrastructure is supposed to give an advantage to the defender, but if you haven't noticed in our six month campaign against you, let me tell you this: it is extremely easy to maintain defensive POSes even under enormous pressure from an attacker. POS fuel logistics are nearly invulnerable thanks to carriers, rorquals, jump bridges, and to a certain extent, jump freighters. The POS modules themselves cost money, sure, but they're completely indestructable unless the tower is destroyed, so there isn't a threat to them. Attacking alliances need to be thrown a big, juicy bone, and able defenders should be the first to admit it when they see how easy it is to lay claim to a wedge of space these days. Attackers are discouraged not by the prospect of loss but by the ridiculous hurdles they are asked to jump to simply put their capitals in the system.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:13:00 - [263] Originally by: Keorythe Quote: 7. Allow black ops covert cynos in cynojammed systems to permit for usefulness of the black ops hull and improved skirmish abilities in cynojammed, jumpbridged systems. Non-viable. Does not even pertain to the cyno-jammer issue. Stop trying to fit your personal wishlists into this discussion. Of course this pertains to the cyno-jammer issue. It may not pertain to the POS warfare issue, but as far as cyno-jammers are concerned, covert cynos are on the table. Don't tell me it's my personal wishlist. You may kindly scroll back to the first dev response where they discussed this themselves. The black ops hull is completely useless at present. The vast majority of 0.0 systems have been cynojammed. The whole point of the black ops ships was to allow for covert raiding into sovereign territory but with the cynojammer mechanic in place, no go. Please explain to me how allowing covert cynos in cynojammed systems is non-viable. I doubt if any amount of stealth bombers and force recon ships are a threat to your or anyone else's deathstars. It will, however, afford a very reasonable counter-tactic to the jump bridge.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:39:00 - [264] Originally by: Gaogan This is balanced by the cost involved in operating them, and the fact that a large alliance controlling a large amount of space should in tern be attacked by another large alliance who can field a 100 man bs fleet to take out the jammer, which a small contingent won't be able to stop. You think it should take 100 battleship capable pilots simultaneously online and coordinated to take out a single POS module just so that the capital pilots can come in and continue the job? You have to be kidding me. Your alliance can't field 100 battleship pilots. Neither can mine. I doubt if even CVA, having six times our numbers, could reliably field 100 battleships. Furthermore there is no alliance that can fight in the hundreds of players and avoid the terrible effects of lag. What you are asking for is a game that turns on blobbing. By the way, you wanted to talk about cost justification? 100 men in battleships? I'd say it's reasonable (even generous to you) to assume a t2 fit and rigged siege battleship cost about 200m. 100 x 200,000,000 = 20,000,000,000 (twenty billion) isk. Of course it doesnt require 100 battleships at present, it takes something more like 50 very good ones. That's still 10 billion isk easy, all to offline (not destroy) a single cheap module with the hopes that the Dreads can come in and reinforce (not destroy) the POS. Only then after the stront is gone and all of the defenders have come to muster on that POS can the attackers possibly inflict damage on the POS investment itself, and only if they can overcome the inevitable defensive blob. Cost justification? It's too cheap to run an empire these days.
Mr Bananas Minmatar Eight year old girls GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:21:00 - [265] Originally by: Vitrael That's where the cynojammer came in. It was the guard dog for when master wasn't at home. The problem now is that the guard dog stands watch even when master is home, or when he's a couple doors over standing next to a jump portal. This is a real solution: the cyno jammer can only run 12 hours a day. Or maybe only 8. That way, the defending alliance can turn on their cynojammer when everyone goes beddy-bye and feel (relatively) safe, however, during their active hours they are going to fight POS warfare the good old fashioned way. I'm really impressed with your rationale, and I agree with your conclusions. I really hope this gets some attention.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:33:00 - [266] Yes Vitrael, that was very well said. I love the idea of the Cynojammer being more a "deadbolt" for when you're sleeping than a 24/7 protection.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:13:00 - [267] Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 18:16:20 I have always disliked nerfs in any game as it is a negative response to a problem and although i feel that there needs to be more evidence before i will admit to jammers being overpowered and in need of a change, i think the best idea so far was too bring in a new class of ship. The new class of ship that would be in between a battleship and a dread is a very exciting and interesting prospect as it could easily tank several DDD and pos guns but be able to use gates as well as cyno fields and jump bridges. It should have poor tracking and very high damage just like a dread in siege mode so it could be used in pos wars but be unable to hit a moving ship smaller than another capital or pos/module. I think this is the best idea so far and should be included in the game even if a good quality pvp alliance proves that with good planning a jammer can be destroyed.
JabJabVVV Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:41:00 - [268] Vitrael, while I understand where you are coming from it is very evident that you are seeing this very much distorted through the prism of your own experience. For example you suggest that jammer HP be reduced this is fine for small scale skirmishes where the jammer may take up to a very long time to offline with a smallish gang but what you fail to think about is in large scale warfare where a 200 man BS gang can take down a jammer in under 10 minutes... that makes it very difficult to organise a response even if you have prior warning, let alone if you don't (ie the jammer would be pointless if its hitpoints were reduced and nothing else changed). Similairly the idea of a jammer that can only be onlined for 8 hours a day; what about multi alliance warfare where there are no really defined high/low times for either side? A time limited jammer in such a situation would be as useful as no jammer at all. Finally you say that a fleet BS costs 200mill... you can lose a T2 fitted fleet BS for 70mill and you can lose a 'disposable' BS fitted specifically for POS take downs for 40mill. Finally you say 'It's too cheap to run an empire these days.' If that is the case then could you kindly explain to me why more people don't do it? Most people stay in empire and even 0.0 alliance members often make most of their money in empire, this strongly suggests that it is too expensive to run an empire, not too cheap. However as I said, I do understand where you are coming from and a corp mate suggested a solution to me earlier that I think might satisfy both large and small alliances alike (as well as being moderately simple). 1) Increase the grid requirements of faction guns inline with normal guns (to reduce the impact of faction 'deathstar' POS) 2) Reduce the jammer combined hitpoints to 5 million or fewer (so that smaller alliances can take them down in a reasonable time period) 3) Give the cyno jammer a reinforced timer like a POS except limit this to 10 or 15 minutes and have it send a DED mail when it is attacked (this means that anyone can take a jammer down but the defender always is given some notice and has an opportunity to respond). This solution ensures that the jammer serves it's purpose regardless of size of attacking forces. It is weak enough that it can be taken down by smaller alliances in a reasonably short time period BUT thanks to the reinforced period it cannot be blobbed by large alliances and removed before the defender has a chance to respond... everyone's a winner \o/ ----------- When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.
John Blackthorn Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:10:00 - [269] I just don't understand the issue with the cyno jammer, there very easy to defeat. To easy if you ask me. You take in 50 b.s. you shoot it down in one hour and thats it. No pos can defend against 50 b.s.
JabJabVVV Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:35:00 - [270] Originally by: John Blackthorn I just don't understand the issue with the cyno jammer, there very easy to defeat. To easy if you ask me. You take in 50 b.s. you shoot it down in one hour and thats it. No pos can defend against 50 b.s. I think the main issue is that while a jammer will go down quickly to a large gang they are disproportionately tough in smaller alliance warfare; a gang of 200 BS will take down a jammer in a few minutes but a gang of 50 will take much longer and if the jammer is at a fully gunned faction POS then a gang of less than 50 may not be able to take the jammer down at all. Hence I like the reinforced timer idea; it balances the cyno jammer at both ends of the spectrum. A small gang will be able to take down the jammer in a reasonable length of time but you will not be able to take down the jammer quick enough with a big blob to render the module pointless (as can happen at the moment). ----------- When I was a n00b, I spake as a n00b, I understood as a n00b, I thought as a n00b: but when I became pr0, I put away n00bish things.

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.