EVE Search - Cyno Jammers & Jump Bridges

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Cyno Jammers & Jump Bridges

» 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 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ren Hanxue Duragon Pioneer Group GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.23 19:58:00 - [151] Originally by: Akelorian I disagree with the op, and the whole slew of goon alts on this matter. Like war stated, without cynojammers fights would be weeks of alarm clock ops, another useless topic like the multiple titans in system one. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the gentlemen disagreeing with the OP that the point is not about removing cynojammers completely; the OP suggest that IF you cynojam a system, you SHOULD NOT be able to get capitals into said system by other means as long as it is cynojammed. The attacking force will still have to take down the jammer to get their own capitals into system; the defending force can still get capitals into system if they are willing to offline/online the cynojammer. That said, I support the OP.
Hori To NorCorp Security eXceed.	Posted - 2008.05.23 20:31:00 - [152] Edited by: Hori To on 23/05/2008 20:31:25 the current system makes battles sort of un-even
Spoon Thumb Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.23 22:59:00 - [153] The whole issue needs to be looked at, not just cyno jammers and JB's but all sov and POS system. It is recoverable, but needs some very careful balancing
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.24 03:07:00 - [154] Originally by: Lord WarATron ... But now how does a smaller alliance take a cynojammed system in the first place when it requires a few hundred battleships if the pos is manned? You post in assumption that they are defending the space, when in reality all the big entities basically have the space right now and smaller entities either NAP up or go home. If it is easy for a small alliance to defend a cynojammed system it is even easier for a bigger entitiy to do it. besides the proposal wouldnt prevent you from bringing caps into the system, and still forces the attacker to log out caps in that very system. Every time the defender wants to bring in caps they have to offline the cynojammer. But they can still bring them in. I dont see how the proposal would hurt small alliances holding space, they can simply leave their caps in their home systems, and online the cynojammer when they feel a threat is coming. The end effect of that is the defender has their caps in system and the attacker has to offline the cynojammer, but at least the attacker can try to sneak some caps in and log them off in system which might produce a capital level fight. --
Atama Cardel Even-Flow	Posted - 2008.05.24 03:08:00 - [155] Supportin' dis
MrClock Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.24 03:41:00 - [156] I too dislike cynojammers
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.05.24 08:25:00 - [157] Originally by: Yorda tl;dr you're ****** stop posting. That's pretty uncalled for. I know you guys hate each other but can you just let it go for once? Or are the interwebs too serious for you? But I still agree with Yordas pt, that alliances can still (and have done) the risk free dreadnaught thing with cynojammers, you merely need to knock 15M hitpoints off of a POS before you begin the sieging. Imho cynojammers are supposed to stop massive dread fleets from reinforcing every POS in a region in a day, but it is NOT supposed to force subcapital ships to have to fight vs a faction fit large POS with guns up the wahoo surrounded by caps and super caps. I'm throwing in my support for this to bbe brought up, but remember we are not advocating removing all cynojammers, just for CCP to take a look at some issues with them. Originally by:** CCP Casqade Please refrain from making assumptions on game mechanics and then presenting them as facts before testing them yourself.
Maleagent Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.05.24 08:52:00 - [158] Totaly agree The whole cynojammer make one side have BS fleet the other a cap ship fleet! History is a bunch of lies that we all agree on.
Conrad Rock Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.05.24 09:01:00 - [159] This idea is very much counter productive to large 0.0 alliances, and yet you have some big alliances voting here for it because they are simply honest in the way game mechanics should work. A cyno jammer is to prevent capital jumps into a system, friendly and hostile. Currently that is broken because the jump bridge, which really wasn't intended for capital ships, makes it possible for friendlies. If you want to bring friendly capitals in, then you have to offline it for a few minutes. The mechanics are there to make that possible and FAIR. That's how it was intended. The current broken way allows easier defending for big 0.0 alliances and prevents smaller groups of doing any harm to big 0.0 infrastructure.
Great Emrys Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.05.24 14:42:00 - [160] Supporting dis

sakana North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.05.24 17:48:00 - [161] This topic deserves a lot of thought/discussion by the CSM.
Soleil Fournier AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.05.25 01:21:00 - [162] I agree w/ OP. I did -not- like the dev proposals for fixing cyno jammers in their interviews. Do not allow jump bridges in cyno jammed systems, limit the number of cyno jammers allowed per constellation, and this issue should be resolved.
Kuranta Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.05.25 10:00:00 - [163] pretty please
Ryntrax	Posted - 2008.05.25 12:08:00 - [164] This mechanic is a bonus of sovereignty in multiple systems. As you should have the advantage in your own system.
Sworn Absent GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.25 15:36:00 - [165] Originally by: Ryntrax This mechanic is a bonus of sovereignty in multiple systems. As you should have the advantage in your own system. This issue is not about the defenders having and advantage - it is about the excessive strength of that advantage.
Moon Kitten GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.05.25 16:34:00 - [166] Originally by: Ryntrax This mechanic is a bonus of sovereignty in multiple systems. As you should have the advantage in your own system. Should you have the advantage in every system at the same time as is the case when you have jump bridges and cyno jammers in every system?
PartyPopper GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.25 17:41:00 - [167] Maybe if this gets fixed we will actually have to fight to defend all of our regions!
Xofii Hedion University	Posted - 2008.05.25 19:56:00 - [168]
Octavinus Augustus Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.26 14:15:00 - [169] Sounds good - although I'd consider going as far as making a game mechanic that prevents capitals from onlining modules in a cyno jammed system. Incidentally, we need 11.000 supporters for this idea in order to make the 5% cut. Each supporter will need to do a post, and we can have about 25 post per page. As we're already on page 6 we only need another 434 pages on this thread in order to hit the magic mark. So keep throwing thumbs on this people. We're nearly there. Q: How do you make a disobediant Minmatar slave scream? A: Skin it and roll it in salt.
Cautet Precision Engineering Insurgency	Posted - 2008.05.26 15:17:00 - [170] Much as I hate to agree with Goons, and even though it only takes 10 mins out of a 23 hours day to knock out a cyncojammer, and even though also this gives numbers a bigger advantage than whether its a friendly or hostile system, this change would lead to more wars, which is a good thing. Personally, I would have liked to see caps and supercaps all nerfed to ****, but I guess no-one else agrees with me on that.

Piuro GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.28 04:46:00 - [171] Oh hey look a thumb.
Lord WarATron Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.28 11:38:00 - [172] Edited by: Lord WarATron on 28/05/2008 11:38:58 Originally by: Draygo Korvan But now how does a smaller alliance take a cynojammed system in the first place when it requires a few hundred battleships if the pos is manned? The Brige is the only thing giving Smaller alliances a chance. E.G Large alliance vs Large Alliance Large Alliance kills cynojammer in 3-5 minutes and keeps capitals in system untill Sov Drops. Using a bridge or not makes no difference since jammer will be down far too quickly to matter. Small alliance vs Large Alliance Small Alliance kills cynojammer in 10-15 minutes and keeps capitals in system untill Sov Drops. Using a bridge or not makes no difference since jammer will be down until sov drops Large Alliance vs Small Alliance Large Alliance kills cynojammer in 3-5 minutes and keeps capitals in system untill Sov Drops. Using a bridge or not makes no difference since jammer will be down far too quickly to matter. Cowardly Alliance vs Small Alliance Cowardly alliance does not want to risk dreads so attacks Jammer. Jammer will be down in 3-5 minutes then the cowardly alliance removes all capitals out of harms way after reinforcing all pos. The Small alliance can put the jammer back up and bring capitals in via bridge to defend against the large alliance attack to remove pos's when they leave reinforced. Point The point is simple. The bridge ability does not effect Large alliances at all since Jammer is down in 3-5 mins making any benifit of bridges useless. It only effects the "Risk Free Capital" alliances using cowardly tactics and only harms the Small Alliances who try to defend against the cowardly alliances. -- Billion Isk Mission
Yorda Battlestars	Posted - 2008.05.28 13:24:00 - [173] Originally by: Lord WarATron Edited by: Lord WarATron on 28/05/2008 11:38:58 Originally by: Draygo Korvan But now how does a smaller alliance take a cynojammed system in the first place when it requires a few hundred battleships if the pos is manned? The Brige is the only thing giving Smaller alliances a chance. E.G Large alliance vs Large Alliance Large Alliance kills cynojammer in 3-5 minutes and keeps capitals in system untill Sov Drops. Using a bridge or not makes no difference since jammer will be down far too quickly to matter. Small alliance vs Large Alliance Small Alliance kills cynojammer in 10-15 minutes and keeps capitals in system untill Sov Drops. Using a bridge or not makes no difference since jammer will be down until sov drops Large Alliance vs Small Alliance Large Alliance kills cynojammer in 3-5 minutes and keeps capitals in system untill Sov Drops. Using a bridge or not makes no difference since jammer will be down far too quickly to matter. Cowardly Alliance vs Small Alliance Cowardly alliance does not want to risk dreads so attacks Jammer. Jammer will be down in 3-5 minutes then the cowardly alliance removes all capitals out of harms way after reinforcing all pos. The Small alliance can put the jammer back up and bring capitals in via bridge to defend against the large alliance attack to remove pos's when they leave reinforced. Point The point is simple. The bridge ability does not effect Large alliances at all since Jammer is down in 3-5 mins making any benifit of bridges useless. It only effects the "Risk Free Capital" alliances using cowardly tactics and only harms the Small Alliances who try to defend against the cowardly alliances. I knew BoB had lowered there application requirements, but goddamn that has to be one of the most ******** things I've ever read (and I read GF.com often). The smaller alliances will never stand a chance against a bigger (even cowardly) alliance. They'll just be outnumbered / outspent and lose horribly. Not to mention they actually have to hold the system for the 30 whatever days it takes to get sov 3.
El Mauru Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.28 16:02:00 - [174] Not entirely sure on this, but it the mechanics clearly need looking into. -
TWD Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.05.29 02:05:00 - [175] I'm counting on you goons to get titans + cynojammers nerfed. We're holding off our invasion until you do. Thumbs up!
Khan Soriano Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.05.29 12:33:00 - [176] Edited by: Khan Soriano on 29/05/2008 12:33:29 Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy Why is it possible to jump bridge capitals into a system while the system is cyno jammed? Cyno jammers were supposed to facilitate sub capital combat however using jumpbridges a sub capital fleet is left to take on a heavily armed POS in a system where the defenders can deploy titans and motherships (as well as carriers and dreads) in almost complete safety. I support every functionality that encourages sub-capital combat. Signed! Previous expansions were supposed to create means and purpose for small scale combat against POS, we all know that it didn't. What it actually did is introduce BETTER, STRONGER and HARDER TO KILL POS..... I don't want them to be nerfed to hell and back but at least make it so that small but organized corps can disrupt larger empires. ----- Arbitrator - Life & Death
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.05.29 15:21:00 - [177] Cynojammers have to sit outside the pos bubble. They have no resistances. They are pretty easy to pop. They honestly don't limit much except from random caps jumping in. For example 2 carriers get tackled in a belt. They won't be able to jump in some caps to pop these carriers. Giving the carriers quite the advantage. If 2 carriers get pinched... their friends arent going to be using a jumpbridge to get reinforcements... they only need like 1-2 falcons and a nanofag or 2. The carriers then are perfectly fine. The real thing cynojammers are stopping the significant forces who are going to bust a pos. Which as I said... cynojammers are going to be easy to get rid of for those people. I don't see why any change needs to be done.
Czanthria Ad Astra Vexillum	Posted - 2008.05.30 03:08:00 - [178] Edited by: Czanthria on 30/05/2008 03:10:04 I'm not sure what source people use to say that cyno jammers are meant to support sub-capital, but the linked one simply says: Originally by: CCP Oveur Cynosural Field Generators that can quickly bring capital ships to the battlefield; and Cynosural Field Jammers to prevent them from coming in. This states what cyno jammers do, not why they do it. The why behind cyno jammers is left as a exercise for the reader. I think it's about better/easier defense, personally. As for the proposal, I support it in principle, but have somewhat different ideas. Non combat capital ships (Freighters, Rorquals) and sub-capital ships aren't changed. Instead of preventing capitals from using jump bridges, I'd recommend having them limit there use with a cooldown, meaning that combat capitals could only use a jump bridge every X minutes. The current issue seems to be that defenders can defend a seemingly unlimited number of systems at once. Having a cooldown on use would allow people to move capitals in peace times without compromising security while preventing preventing alliances from being able to defend all their systems at once. Basically, this would result in the defending alliance having to "commit" their capitals to a system. So, if the defender is sitting in one system with all their caps, the enemy could choose to attack another system. The defenders then have a choice, do nothing or commit some/all of their capitals to defending that system. The attackers can then either proceed to take out whatever system is most vulnerable. Now, this doesn't change the situation for alliances that only have one system and I think people that are at that point should get some extra defensive advantage. There is also the question of the alliance that has 50+ titans and can defend 20+ systems at once. I'd suggest that they actually deserve their advantage, whether or not you actually like them. It's possible that supercaps are too powerful in general, but cyno jammers don't really effect that. I guess there is another thread on that around here though. -- Knowledge is Power!
SN3263827 GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.01 02:52:00 - [179] You have my thumbs up. _____________________________________________ My Wishlist
Rajius GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.01 03:19:00 - [180] Supportin' Dis



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 :: 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.