| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
   |
Posted - 2008.01.28 08:07:00 -
[1]
One issue is that smaller alliances and entitys have no real chance of taking one out.
Imagine two small alliances duking it out. The defenders can (actually regardless of alliance size) field as effective a POS as any of the large alliances out there, making it all but impossible for the agressor to destroy the jammer (and bring in what few caps they might have).
An alliance who (at peak TZ) can field some 30BS with support can never hope to take down a cynojammer at a faction POS so they'll probably have to bring friends to do so (yay more blobs).
Alliances like -A-, BoB, GS, RA, TRI and so forth are not really the issue here. They have proven time and again that a determined attacker will take the jammers down.
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 13:06:00 -
[2]
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. |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.28 20:23:00 -
[3]
We may talk about time/isk spent on fortifying a system vs the difficulty of taking it.
Though we may also talk about the time/isk spent on building up capital-ship assets. For the sake of this discussion, bear in mind that building a capfleet also costs 100s of billions of ISK and 1000s of manhours.
Before the cyno-jammer the only viable way to defend a system was through "active" defenses, I'm talking about ships here with active players at the helm.
Lately we've been given a few new "passive" tools to handle/help defending sov (yes it takes active effort to put these things in place, but when up and running they require only skeleton crews to function efficently, hence the use of the word "passive").
This addition has not dimishied the number of capships, they pile up as usual waiting for the jammers to go down (both on the defending and attacking side).
So one problem (from my point of view) is that these new passive defences are too cheap or effective compared to the "active" defence approach. Meaning it's cheaper to translate your indrustrial backbone into cynojammers than capitals.
The other problem is that in order to minimise losses when attacking a cynojammer the best option is to bring 150-200 bs or more and nuke it in as short time as possible. You might try to play smart (and be careful with spiderrepping BSs), but the enemy might have caps remoterepping the jammer and delegating fighters and then you'r in for a ride.
I'm not complaining that it's too hard to take them out, it just takes some will and numbers.
I'm complaining that there's very few other options that CCP has provided us with, other than blobbing or camping the defenders in station 24/7 til their members get bored and leave, and that's not very funny for either the attacker nor the defender.
Making cynojammers easier to kill will partially fix problem 1. But won't do enough for problem 2.
Making cynojammers harder to maintain will fix problem 1. But won't do jack for problem 2.
Something else needs to be done and I'm to tired and hungry to figure out what.
2c
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 17:09:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Thargat on 29/01/2008 17:17:48
A 10 moon system will cost you 15bil in deathstars POSs in initial set up (high estimation) for total coverage.
15bil will give you at max 6 fitted dreads.
Fair?
Now add a cynojammer (a mere 7 mil ISK) and those 6 dreads count for nothing as long as the jammer is operational.
Yes Sov3 takes isk (fuels) to get. But most POSs can easily pay for themselves and more with moon mining arrays and/or production facilities (even if other POS in system don't have good moons). When they've been up for long enough to get sov3 you'r in the greens ISk wise (unless you'r doing something seriously wrong).
Refueling them can be timeconsuming, but not compared to what it'd take to manually patrol/defend the same area (if you instead invested your 15bil in dreads).
edit: was meaning to throw in an idea here aswell....
POSs could be limited in their use of guns/launchers in a "eve-style" way.
Make small guns on a large POS ineffective, small guns on a small POS effective and large guns on a large POS effective. What you would have then are large POSs that are vulnerable to small ships and small POS that are vulnerable to large ships (though small guns and modules are harder to hit for a large ships guns, maybe they should be made even smaller sigradius wise).
ps: I've always liked the POS approach of fitting. No slots, just PG/CPU and modules. Why we don't have a similar system on our ships is beyond me (some hardpoints for guns and launchers yes, but slots?)
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
Thargat
Caldari
North Star Networks
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 17:20:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Centra Spike
Originally by: Kelsin
That's interesting, but could they not just keep trying to jump in until it worked? I guess jump fuel would be a limiting factor there.
Oh yeah, there would definitely need to be some mechanism to prevent just spamming the "jump to" command, fuel, cool down, etc. Maybe the jammer could bork your "jump computer" so you can't jump for like 10 minutes during which time the fleet has to protect you. I don't know I'm just throwing stuff out there.
Nah... just make the capships jump... but scatter them among neighbouring systems within jumprange of the one your aiming for (those without jammers).
There's only one sig that matters... and that's Radius. |
| |
|