open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nullsec design goals feedback: Small combat
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

Author Topic

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:54:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Mashie Saldana
One major issue for small scale combat is the inevitable hotdrop. How about we could get cyno disruption field? It will not stop cyno jumping but if the cyno is on the same grid as the disruptor all ships jumping in will be scattered all over the system giving the small gang a minute to get away.
…or why not make use of that cynogen timer and turn it into something that widens the array of ships cynos are fitted to to something beyond throw-away frigates?

What if, once activated, it takes a minute or four (subject to balancing considerations) for the cyno to spool up and actually start providing a valid jump target, and the “hot-dropee” (ehm… yes) has a choice between two options: try to kill the cyno ship before the beacon goes active and hope that it is not tanked to hell and back, or gtfo while there's still time…

QFT

Nezumiiro Noneko
Posted - 2011.08.16 03:26:00 - [32]
 

+1 to the ideas of smaller fleets doinng something that impacts stations/pos'/jb's.


Last tour of 0.0 on the combat char basically broke down to hurry up and wait. All there and ready....but fc wants more numbers. Wake up corpies people, we ain't leaving till I get x bs', y caps and I want a few mommies jsut in case. Not fun nights sometimes.


roams...against carebearish crews, meh they'll cruise out at some point they say. safe pos it up and its smoke break time. Be nice to to be able to offline something to bait a fight not needing a bs/cap armada. Or if no fight...least the roam did something besides fly around for 2 hours lol.

And one idea I have, off the wall and real rough....is some reward for corps/alliances to be noob friendly. Real rough idea...something like cost of sov cheaper for crews that aren't 40mil sp or gtfo my face. I know coming up real early, as long as wallet had isk, I'd fly anything I could and hit anything I could with it. t1 trash rides all I had and did not care....about the lolz, not every battle has to win the war.

Bitter vet crews tend to lose that aww screw it, not every pvp run has to be planned down to the smallest detail mindset. Entice the 40mil sp crews to bring in some young bloods, then be down to run some t1 suicide roams for/with em....might revive some small scale fighting. YOur "enemy" does the same...and you got your noobs getting experience, bitter vets out having fun more, and everyone wins. Hell if t1 suicide runs, wouldn't even have to worry about the almighy isk efficiency. Can lose 10ish t1 cruisers to 1 bc lol.

Idea does have the downside like an asshat crew will jsut load up crap alts...not sure how to fix that. I'd say a necessary evil if like I imagine..if it gets young bucks in who will fly out with less than 20 logi's and several cap alts on standby jsut because its better than ratting to get that small pvp aspect going again.

xp3ll3d
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:09:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Green Shift
Actual Pillaging thats not shoot at x stationary ehp but have a system filled with Haven 'eggs' that need time to mature and have us loot and pillage them. Making their pve people unhappy enough to want to just bring a fight.


That's a great idea. It could be something like a passive "energy collector" that takes 48-72 hours to "mature" before they can be 'harvested' by the occupying corp members.
Storming in and destroying them for lulz and denying ISK is easy. But how to incorporate the pillaging? I guess you could sneak in with a gang, pop them, and then you're required to use a salvager to get a fraction of the ISK that would have come a partly matured 'egg'.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:09:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 16/08/2011 06:10:21
Unscannable anchored cargo containers (which die off if not used over a period of time) are a great start to a mobile base of operations (and already exist).
The main issues for me, in order, are
1. Drone replacement. I can't pull drones from a container into my drone bay.
2. Repping/refitting.

Could there be something similar to unscannable anchored containers that also allow you to refit your ship (for repping ability for example) and load your drone bay? You would be vulnerable if you were actually using the base and were scanned down, but otherwise it would be a nice safe spot for you and your gangmates to resupply.

Edit: Maybe this idea should go into one of the other threads...

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:25:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 16/08/2011 06:34:49
Originally by: Satan
Being the only people in this game that made a living from small scale stuff I can tell you the following. Nerfing anything will not have the goals you speak off. Super caps/caps/numbers don't mean anything to a well run small gang they are just more targets and don't need to be nerfed.

The most important aspect of small scale pvp is to allow out of the ordinary tactics, and ships that will allow such combat. At the moment small scale pvp means the 10 of you vs 100 of them, which is fine but when those 100 are given game mechanics which allow them to control every aspect of the fight means the 10 have no choice but to disengage or escalate the fight by calling in backup.

Note he said combat, not that he wants risk free ganking of pve ships. But I do applaud you for being the only corp in all of eve who made not only their ISK out of small gang 'combat' (ie: ganking solo targets 10 to 1 and calling it blob when it is 100 vs 10), and not only used that to all buy faction BS, but also made an impressive supercap fleet out of small gang ganking, and you still think it should be boosted? If you can buy a supercap fleet only fueled by small gang ganking, dont you think it is already more than strong enough? (That is of course assuming you are speaking the truth and there were no completely risk free alts at all involved in making that ISK)


And yes for cyno spool up time. Yes for removal of local, but only when it is replaced by a similar kind of system.


Then I dont think it is a bad idea that small gangs can have some influence on sov for example, (make sov activity based), but what is wanted here just doesnt work. Forcing people to do something in a game doesnt work, income in the vast majority of 0.0 is already lower than in high sec, nerfing it further (being forced to kill every single small gang if you dont want to be locked out of your income for half a day is a nerf) will only result that they do the same as BE, they use alts for their income. And then you only get less small gang combat in 0.0, since no one actually lives there, they only base their fleet fights out of 0.0.
Best case scenario is that the small gang combat you get out of it are blobs. What you want to do is not force people to do small gang pvp, make it fun enough that people want to do it. Examples of stuff that help for that:

Yes for changing local to also allow for hiding part of your fleet, but definately a no for changing it such that it is trivial to hide 80% of your fleet so you can easily gank the opponents.

Spool up time for cynos so the fight isnt over when one side decides to launch cyno and bring in supercaps (or subcaps bridged) while shouting gf in local.

More industry in 0.0, so replacing your losses is not the same as making a trip to jita.

And for the 1-5 men area, make all pve sites more like WHs so pve ships at least got some kind of chance against them.

Callipygian Provocateur
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:08:00 - [36]
 

Local is currently 'magic' information. It shouldn't be. Local should only be updated when someone shows up in your overview, talks, or when that information is given to you by the sov holder, who gets the information from gate traffic (possibly by way of an upgrade structure). Sov holders should be able to seperately control who they give the info of gate comings & goings based on alliance/corp membership & standings. Additionally, they should be allowed to require reciprocity of this information with those in the system. Pilots entering a new (or changed) system could then view and accept or deny the terms of access to the information provided by local.

If there's no sov, there's no local.

One potential scenario of all this:
You take your covops and decide to scout a nearby, but neutral alliance's 'home' system. When you jump in through the gate, you're offered access to local. At this point, you know they already know you're hear, so you accept it and learn there's half a dozen others in the system. You scan, but don't find any obvious anomalies, so you drop your probes. You eventually find them, but you also spot a wormhole. You discover the wormhole leads to hi-sec. You jump through the wormhole and promptly disappear from local in the previous system. After bookmarking this side, you jump back through and show back up in local. Planning ahead to future schenanigans, you change your local settings to decline access in this system. Your view of local doesn't change (it's stored via your client), but you know it won't be updated again until you see the folks in that system elsewhere, see them jump out, or re-join the system's local. You head back out through a gate and disappear from local in that system.

After refitting and trudging through hi-sec to the other end of the wormhole, you jump back through. You're not prompted to join local. Your friends are ready, so you light your covert cyno and a dozen bombers show up. Your local now includes everyone it did before, along with your friends. They cloak up and you re-probe the system, finding the same group you did before. You warp to a safe distance and your view of local changes since there's now eight of them, and four are new. At this point, your local shows 10 neutrals and 12 blues, and you. You don't know how many neutrals are actually in the system. The system local just shows 9 alliance members.

You position yourself for a bombing run, and tell your friends to warp to you. At this point, you decide you value knowing who else might show up over the (remaining) element of surprise, so you rejoin the system local. Your local suddenly changes to show 9 neutrals and you, with no hint of your allies. This suddenly changes again when they decloak and launch their bombs, thus revealing everyone in local. After the attack, and before backup arrives, you loot your victims and high-tail it out of the system through the gates, normally, local adjusting as you do.

The next day, you decide to try your trick again. This time, however, after you jump through the gate, you discover that you no longer have access to the system's local. When you try to solicit it, you're informed that, due to your (new) standings, you're not offered the privilege.

Yankunytjatjara
Amarr
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:29:00 - [37]
 


Something that would help small scale combat immensely:

tactical overview option for solo/small gangs: Ship Velocity Vectors

A vector per ship, showing where it's going and its speed. Visible and with the same size at every level of zoom, but only if the tactical overlay is on. Filterable in the overview options.


Ki'Toban
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:21:00 - [38]
 

As far as objectives to shoot how about this:

Industrial logistics are a pain, especially for low value stuff e.g. large quantity of trit/ore to refine, why not allow pilots access to the npc convoys, could be used to setup remote trading within your home cluster or moving materials from the outer areas of territory back to a central hub.
Easy to setup, some overhead in moving the stuff (isk sink) and the stuff gets moved over a few hours by npc hauler. This free's up the player to continue earning, and provides targets for roaming gangs.

Now for higher value goods the players would organise something better, but if there is a stack of supply's/goods/ores going to and from market hubs.

A small gang that is determined could disrupt a supply line to a market hub, and make roaming useful even without encountering other players.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:28:00 - [39]
 

okay so

make ihub upgrades actual subsystems on the ihub itself, and adjust station services so that both of these things can be taken out in 15-20 by a small roaming gang of hac's for instance if they are reasonably damage fit, but said upgrades also self repair in say 12 or 24 hrs if not repped by the owner, inconvienient but not game breaking, just enough to tempt the owner to throw a quick 5min cta, 5min flight to engage, and still have 5 -10 min to stop you,

Bilaz
Minmatar
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:44:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Bilaz on 16/08/2011 09:50:07
I think that marking 5-50 people as a small combat is mistake.
In my experience subcapital fleets of 1-10 (small) and 20-60 (med size) ships have different goals and targets:
- small scale usually looking for lonely targets and more gank oriented - fast/small ships or static camps looking for easy prey.
- med fleets are structured and more interested in gangs willing to fight them. they also seek weaker prey and gank people if able but ultimate goal is not gank/kill but fight.

If they have different goals - they also face different problems - for small scale:
1) main problem is lack of targets - pve players are generally taken from "open space"(gates, planets, belts) to anomalies, plexes, missions and such where they are mostly safe and have plenty of time to evade combat - to warp out you need 10 seconds, to scan down anomaly and warp there you need 30+. with missions, exp. plexes and hidden belts we are speaking about 10 seconds vs 4-5 minutes.
2) -campers also having problems becouse most of trafic/logistics goes thru bridges and cynos - and there are plenty of ships more or less immune to campers - from SC to cov.ops and inties (not mentioning clone jumps)
3) - "wolf is being fed by its legs" small scale gang have to make 40-150 jumps to find targets - with scaning, baiting and scouting thats taking hours (non-stop if in group) and thus only good for people with lots of free time and nothing better to do.

For med scale - problems are fundamental. there is no reason for people to fight in their space with small or med gangs (also their supercaps are mostly immune to med scale gangs and its cheap to use them that way - i wont speak about this problem becouse its obvious and boring). And homewelcoming party much more likely to get twice the numbers, not something one can fight but just to scare strangers away or gank one or two of them.

And if unwilingless may be cured with some sov or game change - lack of interest in equal fight comes from unability to make sufficient damage when losing battle (logistics and damage scale up too good) and when winning battle (no means to takle group of people when they run away - you may hold them for a short while with a bubble or two, but thats it (plus ofc gate/station hugging))

And if you add to that lack of targets for small scale - thus no small gangs to gank, no anti-small and anti-med gangs from sov holders (due to reasons stated above) - you have quite bleak picture. reality is brighter ofc, but for major part of 0.0 population small/med roamings are just a waste of time and effort.

From all this you can see that being unable to get a lot of small/med pvp-content from neigbours - 0.0 dwellers dont see them as a valuable resource of fun for their members, so they either "blue" them to make a powerblock or oblitirate them to replace with citizens (maybe just for "fun").

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:53:00 - [41]
 

You can want easy ganks with your small gang (really some people do actually fly for the good fights and not for kms), but there is no one who wants to be the easy ganked. In other words yes you can make it trivially easy to gank a pve'er like some want, and short term that gives you kms (really faking them is easier), but long term the result is that you simply get fewer targets since they wont want to be the easy ganked.

Zothike
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:01:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Zothike on 16/08/2011 12:01:37
some idea for small gang/territory and conquest/ small holding - to get from here

http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/2011-07-29-intrusion-2-0/

Bilaz
Minmatar
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:03:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
You can want easy ganks with your small gang (really some people do actually fly for the good fights and not for kms), but there is no one who wants to be the easy ganked. In other words yes you can make it trivially easy to gank a pve'er like some want, and short term that gives you kms (really faking them is easier), but long term the result is that you simply get fewer targets since they wont want to be the easy ganked.

you cant have one without other. 2 wolfs can gank 1 rabbit but 6 rabbits would **** 2 wolfs. knowing that somewhere rabbits and wolfs eat each other - brings other animals - goats, bears - and each and all try to kill everyone - thats ecosystem of eve - the way it worked before bad things came.

but if wolfs unable to catch rabbit - rabbits would never grow fangs, they would be bored to death - and boredom would kill some of them becouse they would be afk in anomaly when wolfs would come. no bears, no goats - everybody starve and waste time.

my interest is in seeing more fanged rabbits and more wolfes - pvp being easy to get for everyone, so that there would be less megablobs shooting structures for 5-6 hours every day with 1-3 mega-lagggy fight per week - becouse thats only pvp many players can get in eve.

Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:16:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale


Originally by: Dwindlehop
I would note that current game mechanics do not support the nomad lifestyle you seem to want to force on "small combat" alliances. Carriers, motherships, and titans all require a player to log in frequently and in your timezone in order to become a base of operations. We need a nomadic base which can be accessed across all time-zones without a player who must be online constantly. The nomad base shouldn't be tied to any industry/manufacturing like POS are; it should really only be for PvP activities. It could require significant investment, but it would also need the capability to retreat rather than be blown up when a large space alliance gets tired of being raided.

I strongly support the "incentives for small combat" bullet. I would much rather be doing something very high risk in someone else's space with the opportunity to produce PVP than messing around with solo PVE to get money. Reward the PVP pilots taking a risk. That's good game design.

Your other points seem fine.


Yup, the base-of-operations issue is a big deal that needs to be looked into.


Dear CCP and terrible person,
Want small combat 0.0 base of operations safe from supers and is ****ing awesome? Try a class 5 static 5 wormhole space system!
Nullsecs are the most common wormholes in wspace that spawn either in or out. My corp actively uses wspace to shoot up errbody.

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:17:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 16/08/2011 13:18:18
I've done smal scale pvp 1-6 man gangs mostly almost whole my eve career. Here's few of my suggestions which would, hopefully, make my very personal eve-life much more fun:

- Cynosural fields, add at least timer (60 seconds or more) for them so it would be near useless to drop cyno near anyone currently shooting you. I would even allow cynoship still move. This wouldn't only affect 0.0 but low security space also.

- Structure targets. There's definite need for structure targets like "mining towers" which you can take down with fewer ships in reasonable time. This would of course mean that loot wouldn't be so great but still worth taking and defending too!

- Intel. I am going to be honest here. It annoys me greatly when I jump in local and try to scan down ships in anomalies people just warp to safety when they see me in local. Even if you have bookmark to their site before you appear in local it's tricky to catch anyone. I know people cry lol-pirates go away, but that's one style of play. Life is pretty boring without any risk.

- General value of loot. Due inflation or whatsoever I don't care about, value of loot has gone so low long time ago that it's rarely worth looting enemy ships. It should be rewarding also isk wise to shoot other people. Now that value of loot is so low we see more and more people who carebear in wormholes/empire wherever with 10 accounts and make one pvp account for just fun. I want to make money while I'm shooting other people. Sometimes, if lucky, someone drops valuable modules, but that's hardly anything you can count on.

- Mobile base. Carriers and other similar capitals make nice mobile bases. However small gang cannot really afford to have one guy sitting in carrier when he could be flying useful ship. Also if you blow up, say, freighter full of minerals. How are you going to haul everything somewhere you can sell them? It's just not working. It goes way beyond small scale again. Even simple thing such as having ammo/nanite paste/cap boosters is a real problem when you're 30 jumps from empire space. Not to mention if you happen to burn out one module. And no wormholes won't do.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 13:55:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Bilaz
Originally by: Furb Killer
You can want easy ganks with your small gang (really some people do actually fly for the good fights and not for kms), but there is no one who wants to be the easy ganked. In other words yes you can make it trivially easy to gank a pve'er like some want, and short term that gives you kms (really faking them is easier), but long term the result is that you simply get fewer targets since they wont want to be the easy ganked.

you cant have one without other. 2 wolfs can gank 1 rabbit but 6 rabbits would **** 2 wolfs. knowing that somewhere rabbits and wolfs eat each other - brings other animals - goats, bears - and each and all try to kill everyone - thats ecosystem of eve - the way it worked before bad things came.

but if wolfs unable to catch rabbit - rabbits would never grow fangs, they would be bored to death - and boredom would kill some of them becouse they would be afk in anomaly when wolfs would come. no bears, no goats - everybody starve and waste time.

my interest is in seeing more fanged rabbits and more wolfes - pvp being easy to get for everyone, so that there would be less megablobs shooting structures for 5-6 hours every day with 1-3 mega-lagggy fight per week - becouse thats only pvp many players can get in eve.

Very interesting, one small issue, in the normal eve PVE (like anomalies) it is impossible to put fangs on your rabbit. Well you can do it, but then your rabbit would starve anyway, while it can also simply move to high sec where it has infinite carrots that might be a bit smaller than those in 0.0, but not by much (if at all), where it doesnt need those fangs so it can be much more efficient.

TL;DR, in eve you cannot combine pve and pvp in one setup if you want a reasonable efficiency. Same if you want to put pvp setups on standby, both boring and horrible inefficient.

SATAN
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.08.16 14:47:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 16/08/2011 06:34:49
Originally by: Satan
Being the only people in this game that made a living from small scale stuff I can tell you the following. Nerfing anything will not have the goals you speak off. Super caps/caps/numbers don't mean anything to a well run small gang they are just more targets and don't need to be nerfed.

The most important aspect of small scale pvp is to allow out of the ordinary tactics, and ships that will allow such combat. At the moment small scale pvp means the 10 of you vs 100 of them, which is fine but when those 100 are given game mechanics which allow them to control every aspect of the fight means the 10 have no choice but to disengage or escalate the fight by calling in backup.

Note he said combat, not that he wants risk free ganking of pve ships. But I do applaud you for being the only corp in all of eve who made not only their ISK out of small gang 'combat' (ie: ganking solo targets 10 to 1 and calling it blob when it is 100 vs 10), and not only used that to all buy faction BS, but also made an impressive supercap fleet out of small gang ganking, and you still think it should be boosted? If you can buy a supercap fleet only fueled by small gang ganking, dont you think it is already more than strong enough? (That is of course assuming you are speaking the truth and there were no completely risk free alts at all involved in making that ISK)


And yes for cyno spool up time. Yes for removal of local, but only when it is replaced by a similar kind of system.


Then I dont think it is a bad idea that small gangs can have some influence on sov for example, (make sov activity based), but what is wanted here just doesnt work. Forcing people to do something in a game doesnt work, income in the vast majority of 0.0 is already lower than in high sec, nerfing it further (being forced to kill every single small gang if you dont want to be locked out of your income for half a day is a nerf) will only result that they do the same as BE, they use alts for their income. And then you only get less small gang combat in 0.0, since no one actually lives there, they only base their fleet fights out of 0.0.
Best case scenario is that the small gang combat you get out of it are blobs. What you want to do is not force people to do small gang pvp, make it fun enough that people want to do it. Examples of stuff that help for that:

Yes for changing local to also allow for hiding part of your fleet, but definately a no for changing it such that it is trivial to hide 80% of your fleet so you can easily gank the opponents.

Spool up time for cynos so the fight isnt over when one side decides to launch cyno and bring in supercaps (or subcaps bridged) while shouting gf in local.

More industry in 0.0, so replacing your losses is not the same as making a trip to jita.

And for the 1-5 men area, make all pve sites more like WHs so pve ships at least got some kind of chance against them.


Your clueless, this isn't a thread about how we killed your alliance so stop with the lame smack. We move into an enemy's home and do our best to force them to fight one way or the other. If you think out goal is to gank some guy who goes out ratting there are far easier ways about it than to jump into a main system with 300+ people in local.

If you think its risk free pvp go right ahead, you should have no problem making it look easy.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:01:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 16/08/2011 15:06:49
*You're


Also you do your best to make your life as much risk free as possible (really dont deny it, also you didnt kill my alliance, only one i was in that you did a campaign against you afterwards complained on CAOD we used JBs too often), and you just got to accept your targets do exactly the same. If you want to force them to engage you, attack their sov, but otherwise they also cant force you to engage their 200 men blob, so why should you be able to force their solo players to engage your 20 men 'blob'?


Also you kinda forgot to explain why your play style is in such a desperate need of a boost, considering you yourself said you could make your ISK with it, and looking at the ships BE flies I dont think you lack ISK.

E man Industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:08:00 - [49]
 

enjoyed this section.

Be really nice to have some small gang pvp avaialbe to those with a limited play time.

I also hate blue ball fleets where you roam and roam and get nothing...then you have to fly all the way home.

A blue ball fleet is almost as bad as getting super cap droped and having your guardian get hit by 4 doomsdays....

Hansipoo
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:37:00 - [50]
 

So how about AFK cloaking? Is small gang "disruption" actually going to be active? Or are big alliances still going to have an afk cloaker in every system?

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:21:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Hansipoo
So how about AFK cloaking? Is small gang "disruption" actually going to be active? Or are big alliances still going to have an afk cloaker in every system?
AFK cloaking only exists because of local. Fix local and the (supposed) problem goes away.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:27:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Hansipoo
So how about AFK cloaking? Is small gang "disruption" actually going to be active? Or are big alliances still going to have an afk cloaker in every system?
AFK cloaking only exists because of local. Fix local and the (supposed) problem goes away.

AFK cloaking only exists because of the current cyno mechanics.

Without the threat of a full fleet on a moment's notice an AFK cloaker isn't enough of a threat to keep people indoors.

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:41:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Bloodpetal on 16/08/2011 17:01:21
Edited by: Bloodpetal on 16/08/2011 16:53:58

How about a Mobile Cynosural Jammer or Cynosural Jammer Probe (Dictors).

It does NOT have to be 100% chance of success. It works somewhat like an ECM module whenever an attempt is made to open a cyno. Let's say it has a 50% chance of stopping a cyno at each attempt. It can be higher if you want to make it more risky to hot drop for the cyno ship.

The cyno jammer probe can use the interdiction sphere launcher, and would fit will with small gang operations. The Mobile Cyno Jammer can be setup at key positions for small gang defenses but can easily be destroyed by a bigger fleet, removing it from being a hassle or viable for a "deploy it everywhere" strategy" like mobile bubbles.


It blocks Cynos within a certain range of it (100KM?).


Why won't everyone use it all the time?

Well, the range of 100KM, for example, is sufficient to protect a small gang from a hot drop, but not enough to really stop big fleet battles from happening. In massive fleets, being out at 150KM is actually advantageous for warp ins - so it won't stop capitals completely, and it will solve an issue I know CCP was trying to address with hot drops being too common.





Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:41:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 16/08/2011 16:46:26
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
AFK cloaking only exists because of the current cyno mechanics.

Without the threat of a full fleet on a moment's notice an AFK cloaker isn't enough of a threat to keep people indoors.
No, that's just plain old cloaking, possibly compounded by what you point out in another of these blog threads: the immediacy of cynos.

The problem with AFK cloaking is simply local — people keep seeing this undetectable ship because they have a completely broken intel tool at their disposal and keep fearing that it will suddenly do something. They (think they) know it's coming because they can see it. Without local, they wouldn't have that constant source of fear and would have to adopt new tactics to minimise risk and adapt their play style to whatever proper intel tools were put into place to replace local.

Dragonzchilde
Minmatar
BURN EDEN
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:23:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Edited by: Furb Killer on 16/08/2011 15:06:49
*You're


Also you do your best to make your life as much risk free as possible (really dont deny it, also you didnt kill my alliance, only one i was in that you did a campaign against you afterwards complained on CAOD we used JBs too often), and you just got to accept your targets do exactly the same. If you want to force them to engage you, attack their sov, but otherwise they also cant force you to engage their 200 men blob, so why should you be able to force their solo players to engage your 20 men 'blob'?


Also you kinda forgot to explain why your play style is in such a desperate need of a boost, considering you yourself said you could make your ISK with it, and looking at the ships BE flies I dont think you lack ISK.


Trying to change the topic by trying to find out how we make our isk is not going to add anything.

Like everyone we try to minimize our risk, but you clearly have no clue what it takes to get to the point where we PVP. Fighting a 100 - 200 men blob isn't exactly what i call risk free. Ohh I know you will say we come in at range (which used to be true), however what stops the 100 - 200 men blob to dedicate like 25 - 50 of their forces to cov ops alts?

Go live your safe lemming life, hide in the blob pack that engages the other mindless blob. We have proven since beta that small gang pvp is possible. Every year since beta one or more nerfs have been introduced to hit our pretty effective pvp style. I'm sure that if you bring the though in your collective hive mind people will actually remember what it was when Burn Eden entered your system.

You are right, what we do is easy and doesn't require any skill. That is the reason why BE is roughly 15 players + the occasional recruit and that is why a lot of them try but most of those fail.

The reason Eve sucks donkey balls is because n00bs like yourself kept nagging and whining till CCP nerfed the **** out of solo/ small gang pvp 'cause the collective hive minds of blob alliances had no clue about tactics and skills.

CSM only made it worse as it mostly is/ was the voice of one faction in EVE. CCP has ever since so much lost its touch with the game and its player base that they still don't notice how ****ing broke the pvp is and how it has all be reduced to 500 vs 500 battles.


Doctor Invictus
Gallente
Industry and Investments
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:24:00 - [56]
 

Over in my [url=http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1447812&page=2#45]thread[/url] I have a wide array of systems in place the encourage small-gang combat without nerfing epic fleet battles:


1) Modified index and system-upgrade mechanisms: Interrupting activity in a system causes the quality of the system to backslide, such as by removing nullsec agents, lowering the quality of belts and exploration sites, and reducing the ability to add infrastructure (accomplish-able by small gangs).


2) Modular outposts: Infrastructure modules get anchored to outposts (which act as centers for sovereignty warfare). While small gangs can't disrupt sovereignty directly, they can disable individual modules (e.g., strategic or economic infrastructure), forcing them to enter into a kind variation on the concept of reinforcement mode. Aspects of the revised index system create incentives to attack 'outer' parts of an alliance's space, rather than core systems.

Ugleb
Minmatar
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:45:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Obsidian Hawk

Nerf titan bridges

Like in the lore is says they make a mini wh to transport people. put a weight limit on the wormholes it generates, and after so many jump the bridge naturally collapses.


I like the idea of Titans dropping little wormholes around the places, in theory an enemy fleet could hijack them to come through and attack the titan. ;)

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:52:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 16/08/2011 16:46:26
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
AFK cloaking only exists because of the current cyno mechanics.

Without the threat of a full fleet on a moment's notice an AFK cloaker isn't enough of a threat to keep people indoors.
No, that's just plain old cloaking, possibly compounded by what you point out in another of these blog threads: the immediacy of cynos.

The problem with AFK cloaking is simply local — people keep seeing this undetectable ship because they have a completely broken intel tool at their disposal and keep fearing that it will suddenly do something. They (think they) know it's coming because they can see it. Without local, they wouldn't have that constant source of fear and would have to adopt new tactics to minimise risk and adapt their play style to whatever proper intel tools were put into place to replace local.

Without a credible threat, it doesn't matter.

Cloaked or not. Put a difficult to scan ship in system and you get the same effect except that people might try to hunt it down, at least until the finder's "reward" is a hotdrop.

Taking away automated local updates doesn't do away with the threat either. They'll sit there chatting every now and then just to let you know they are still there. Smart pilots will put them on watch list if there isn't local to watch. Then they don't even need to be in the same system to be a threat!

Imagine one person in a stealth bomber holding a whole constellation hostage!

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.16 18:33:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Taking away automated local updates doesn't do away with the threat either.
No, but it takes away the perception that there is a threat from someone who's not even there, because there is no way of telling that there is…

Or, look at it from the perspective of the AFK:er: if people don't know that you're there, you can't terrorise them by your mere presence, and without local, there is no way of letting them know that while being AFK. So AFK:ing becomes entirely pointless from a tactical perspective and reverts to being what it is: effectively being logged off without actually being logged off.
Quote:
They'll sit there chatting every now and then just to let you know they are still there.
…which means they're not AFK, which is the whole point. All of the “AFK” whiners say they have nothing against cloakers as long as they are at the keyboard; they just resent the fact that people can go AFK and scare people. The only reason those AFKers can be scary is because local tells people that they are there.

Without that information, the same people would only know that the cloaker is around if he reveals himself — if he's not AFK — and that is apparently ok (unsurprisingly, really, since that's just cloaks doing what cloaks do).

This is the quintessential silliness with the whole AFK debate: it's about people who don't actually do anything, because they can't because they're not there, but who might do something when they are actually there. And since people see that player in local, they get all worked up about the potential threats that might await them. Without local, this can't happen (or, alternatively, it will be a permanent state of paranoia which eventually becomes a routine non-issue).

None of the threats that the AFKers are said to present are actually connected to the AFKer — they can't be by virtue of the simple fact that the person is AFK. The perceived threat of AFK cloakers is exactly that: a perception issue. Remove the ability to perceive the threat, and the issue goes away. What's left is the actual threats, which have nothing to do with AFK cloakers, but rather with normal at-keyboard players, and who are using the functionality of their ships as intended.

So: remove local, and the issue of AFK cloakers is gone. All that remains is the (non)issue of cloakers, and the (maybe) issue of cynos.

Newt Rondanse
Posted - 2011.08.16 18:46:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Newt Rondanse
Taking away automated local updates doesn't do away with the threat either.
No, but it takes away the perception that there is a threat from someone who's not even there, because there is no way of telling that there is…

Or, look at it from the perspective of the AFK:er: if people don't know that you're there, you can't terrorise them by your mere presence, and without local, there is no way of letting them know that while being AFK. So AFK:ing becomes entirely pointless from a tactical perspective and reverts to being what it is: effectively being logged off without actually being logged off.


Originally by: Tippia

Quote:
They'll sit there chatting every now and then just to let you know they are still there.
…which means they're not AFK, which is the whole point.:trimmed:

So: remove local, and the issue of AFK cloakers is gone. All that remains is the (non)issue of cloakers, and the (maybe) issue of cynos.

I can bring up my cloaky window every hour or so, say something, then minimize it again.

Am I "at keyboard" for that window? No.
Am I still making my presence known? Yes.

Removing local chat completely has the problem of cutting communication channels. In a multiplayer game that is bad.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only