| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.01.28 22:06:00 -
[1]
Cyno Jammers were put in place to hold back cap ships online. Currently they are the only mechanic doing so (lag is not really a mechanic).
Smaller groups use these to balance out attacks from larger entities. Determination plays a huge role in the outcome of those conflicts.
- 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)
Let me start by saying Black Ops probably need a rework. Do not change the game so Black Ops have a role, change Black Ops. Allowing the Covert Cyno in jammed systems is a mistake. A defender dedicated to patrol or control of certain choke points should have *some* chance at catching an enemy. If the Covert Cyno goes this route there will be almost nothing to stop an attacker from positioning a few Blackops to drop their fleet all over defended space with impunity. A defending gang arrives at point A? Just Cyno to attack point B or C. Now add the possibility of jump bridges not working in damped systems. At that stage the defender is penalized (again).
More fueling? 8 hour timers? No thank you. More punishment for the defender. It is bad enough that in the far flung future we do not have computers capable of auto adjusting fuel levels, like strontium.If you want to increase the fuel used by a tower do that, not a seperate fuel.
An offensive module is worth considering, it forces attackers to risk the module and fight to maintain it. I am hazy on how that would fit in with current mechanics though.
Many of the other concepts in this thread totally ignore one side of the issue or the other. Finding a happy medium between the large and small groups is very difficult.
What I feel really needs to happen is a long hard look at Soverignty mechanics, towers and cap ships. Unlike balance changes to ships, space holding groups cannot 'dock' the towers until they are fixed. Do not change it until a full overhaul is ready.
For now, it takes real determination to attack or defend a Jammer. Maintaining hard won space is not easy. Taking that space away should reflect that.
|
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 22:44:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Pezzle on 28/01/2008 22:46:19
This is not about ego or agenda. I would say that while my post may have some bias, it contains less than some in this thread. Certainly there is less hostility ;)
The facts remain. Large groups preying on the smaller is one reason these modules exist in the first place. Smaller groups attacking larger groups is indeed an issue, but not one that can favorably be resolved by most of the propositions in this thread. If you make it 'easy' for a small group it becomes a cakewalk for a large one and nothing is solved. It is about the numbers. I am not particularly pleased with the current systems but I CAN see the harm in changing functions of this magnitude in order to cater to a certain playstyle.
|
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 04:56:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Pezzle
The facts remain. Large groups preying on the smaller is one reason these modules exist in the first place. Smaller groups attacking larger groups is indeed an issue, but not one that can favorably be resolved by most of the propositions in this thread. If you make it 'easy' for a small group it becomes a cakewalk for a large one and nothing is solved. It is about the numbers. I am not particularly pleased with the current systems but I CAN see the harm in changing functions of this magnitude in order to cater to a certain playstyle.
What is the harm in the cyno jammer preventing friendly jump bridging as well?
|
Pezzle
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 05:29:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Pezzle on 29/01/2008 05:31:56
Originally by: Kelsin
What is the harm in the cyno jammer preventing friendly jump bridging as well?
On the surface this is easy and there would be little issue. Given a bit of thought and time that surface peels away revealing several issues.
*IF* the intended purpose of jump bridges is easing the burden of supply chains this entirely disrupts that process.
*IF* the intended purpose of jump bridges is making defenders capable of better response to attackers it hinders them.
Having been around for the warp to 15 days I can tell you the populace can manage with more difficult refueling. It may or may not shrink controlled space. Alliance can park fuel alts and dump multiple weeks of fuel in a system. That would circumvent much of the difficulty, and for what? My feeling is, less time fueling is more time for fighting!
The response time is tricker. 'Need for Speed'. Indeed we must react faster now to attacks at any time, anywhere. As I see it bridges actually allow an engagement. Nano gangs are an exceedingly common occurrence. Do we want actual engagements or simple piledrivers? I vote for a better chance at fighting. Now, I understand many enjoy the hit and fade routine and that is fine. Should your opponents be SOL? Should there be a chance of a stand up engagement? Beyond the nano factor is simple availability.
Perhaps CCP wants all 0.0 holdings to shrink? I cannot decide that for them. It can take time for a gang to assemble. If the attackers want a fight they might wait.Perhaps the hostiles only want ducks in a barrel? This game is driven by ships exploding at the right time. Consider the number of pilots yearning for that elusive 'good fight'. Yes, defenders can overwhelm the attackers in that way sometimes. On other occasions attackers have all the right numbers and do the job. Remember the attacker starts out with choice of location and time.
Before we get carried away there is another issue to be raised. What you pose is a choice between slower response times (less actual fights) and cap ships online. That is not much of a choice.
I am sorry if a bit of this was missing in my other post, it was in an earlier draft while at work and was missed as .. well there was work to be done :P
The point I am trying to make is that while the ENTIRE system needs to be examined and possibly reworked we should not discount the utility of what we have. Jammers stem cap ships online. Bridges actually enhance need for speed (which is about more than ships going fast). Is it perfect? NO.
Remember that large vs small and the reverse need to balance out. Unfortunately most propositions of the small vs large group will only further empower even larger groups to dominate the board. I want to see more small groups in 0.0. Take that however you will.
CCP must account for human nature. Right now using more will simply trump anything on the board. The proposed changes do not alter this inevitability. While we can argue nothing will prevent this it is unwise to rush for changes that, even with multiple flaws, hold the system together.
|
| |
|