open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Cap ships, Cyno jammers and POS's
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

5h4dy
Alpha Strike.
Posted - 2008.04.30 13:45:00 - [1]
 

what are all the candidates opinions on these parts of the game?

I believe all three in there current form are helping to kill eve, in todays game we are starting to see fleets with more cap ships than any other type of ship, and along with cyno jammers in the near future big alliances that can field 150 cap ships anytime of day, how can any other alliance hope of being able to take down cyno jammed systems?

And why is it that people who spam more pos's get sov of that system, why not introduce a new type of pos or structure, which claims sov in the system it is anchored, now only one of these pos's can be put in any one system at a time, so if alliance A holds sov in a system, Alliance B only has to kill one pos and replace it with there sov gaining pos to gain sov over the system. This would decrease pos spam but there would be still roles for the old pos's such as mining and forward bases for ships to base from when assaulting systems.

Also with the introduction of jump bridges, it makes moving around 0.0 nearly risk free, 0.0 with all the above mechanics affecting it is become so easy to control for any competent alliance, and only encourages the need to form the biggest blob possible to get results. Small scale pvp is dying and large scale pvp is just a giant lagfest with luck deciding thewinner most times, isnt time for these issues to be looked at and changed before its to late.

What do the candidates think?

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.04.30 13:55:00 - [2]
 

I think Jade's take and ideas on the whole subject, is completely right.

We need a more dynamic eve, in terms of PvP. Cyno jammers ISN'T helping this.

5h4dy
Alpha Strike.
Posted - 2008.04.30 13:59:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
I think Jade's take and ideas on the whole subject, is completely right.

We need a more dynamic eve, in terms of PvP. Cyno jammers ISN'T helping this.


I havnt had time to read all of Jades thoughts as of yet, I do agree that cyno jammers are realy affecting pvp at this time, so many people are uses masses of cap ships but only when hid behind the jammers, being any non-cap fleet that enters the system is at a massive disadvantage usualy resulting in no engagements due to the massive odds stacked against them and having limted resources to fight back.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 15:23:00 - [4]
 


These issues are a central matter in my CSM Manifesto 5h4dy,

I agree with you, the current issues in 0.0 warfare going wrong come down directly to Sovereignty from POS/Cyno Jammers/Jump Bridges and the impact they have on actual play.

1. Sovereignty does need to change from being generated from the POS structure. We need a better mechanic that doesn’t force all sides to assemble at a pre-arranged time where it’s all about the uber blob – we need these battles to have initiative and uncertainty and far my dynamism incorporated in the conflict.

CCP's prototype "gate control" for Sovereignty proposal though rough and needful for more functional detail is 1000x better than the current POS/Sovereignty mechanic in my opinion.

2. I agree completely about jump bridges too, they make 0.0 logistics much too easy for sovereignty 3 holders (and since sovereignty 3 is way too easy to get in and of itself – and ludicrously difficult to contest after the event) this is a real issue. Before Jump Bridges it was possible to interdict a 0.0 empire by hitting their logistics and transport assets, now it’s just become a matter of watching invulnerable ships warping between POS shields.

Other issue of course is the ubiquitous jump bridge “hot drop” wherein the defender gets to blob at a central location and near instantly appear at any other bridge in reaction to invasion/raids. Again it’s a blob-creator, it makes it too easy to focus too many ships in too few engagements and yes, it’s hurting the game. Largescale nano-use in 0.0 is a direct consequence of this.

Jump Bridge spam will become less of an issue if we get a proper sovereignty mechanic though. If it actually takes effort to generate and maintain sovereignty 3 (as in you can keep it by patrolling and fighting in your core node systems) then its less of a problem. Where its really abusive at the moment is in dozens of afk POS only systems in the full knowledge that attacks physically cannot threaten the status quo in a significantly-urgent timescale.

3. Cyno-jammers are terrible. Way too easy to put up, mindless in operation, impossible to scale for balance (might well be possible for 150 tech2 battleships to bring down but is that really what CCP want as the “entry bar” for territorial warfare in 0.0?”).

They also make the destruction of Capital Ships much rarer than it should be. Promoting environments where only one side have Cap ships in the initial engagements leads to more polarized (we massively outblob or we don’t fight gameplay decisions). Without the jammers people would be committed greater numbers of cap ships to more uncertain fights and incidence of capital ship loss would increase.

This would go some way to addressing the problem of steadily increasing capital arms race in 0.0 – from a game health perspective we need to be advocating changes that actually get those uber empires to commit their cap ships to open space battles with a significant risk of loss to achieve objectives.

***

But yes, LaVista’s right, its pretty much my ideal campaign issue this and plays directly into my manifesto, please do have a read and let me know what you think.

CSM Manifesto 2008

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.04.30 18:04:00 - [5]
 

In general, killing a well-equipped cyno jammer POS is too difficult, and I honestly have absolutely no taste for POS demoltion or most large-scale fleet operations at all (don't let the corp ticker fool you). I posted some ideas for how to make attacking a little easier here, some ideas I have pasted in this thread below.

Originally by: Bane Glorious
Increase powergrid need for Cynosural System Jammers - gives the POS less firepower, making it easier to attack [and less time consuming, doesn't force blobbing or gimp setups as much]

Dramatically reduce the hitpoints of all POS structures, with exceptions - It was wise of CCP to give batteries high hitpoints at first release of "Starbase Warfare 2.0", since making defenses too hard to attack is less likely to upset players than making them pointlessly weak. Since it's been nearly eight months since release, however, I think it's safe to really sit down and consider reducing structure HP across the board, with the exceptions of cynojammers and possibly Large Turret Batteries. (Remember: If you reduce structure HP by one-half, it takes half the time to incapacitate, but it also takes half the time to repair and reonline. In the end, I really think it could work out) [Ask me about how this would reduce blobbing!]

Disable the use of Twinned Jump Bridges in cynojammed systems - Jump Bridges in conjunction with cyno jammers really make things too easy to defend, especially since you can just jump bridge capitals but it's really too powerful for subcapitals as well.

Increase the Signature Radius of POS Batteries - this is just because right now, missiles won't do full damage to them because their signature radiuses are too small, while turrets will do full damage to them.

Let small and medium towers count for sov equal to a large - on my wish list. [To elaborate, small and medium towers are much easier to deal with than larges, and with the five-per-day anchoring limit POS spam isn't as much of an issue. Furthermore, if CCP were to decide that POS should be disconnected from sovereignty altogether, then that's all the better.]



Most of my brainstorming has been related to keeping the current POS-based sovereignty system, but making it more palatable overall. I like the idea of ditching POS entirely when it comes to sovereignty, but I'm not feeling it 100% with the whole gate control system, though it'd be an improvement.

But even if sovereignty was not determined by starbase counts, cyno jammer POS would still be too difficult to attack.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.04.30 18:11:00 - [6]
 


I should have run on a single issue campaign myself over this, but too late now :P

Since I already gave Jade a hard time over it, to be fair to everyone, I have a solution to said problem of cyno jammers and POS which is detailed here, and I'd be interested in knowing what other candidates felt about it.

Darkstar Deceiver
Caldari
Dreddit
Posted - 2008.04.30 21:11:00 - [7]
 

I've been thinking about a solution to the cynosural field generator problem. One of the
solutions I thought of would be to add a fuel requirement for it (something moderate, not too large, not too small), as well as reducing its armor hit-points to something more manageable, such as 1million rather than 15million.

Another idea would be to require sovereignty 4 before being able to anchor it. Yes, this would wreck havoc in some systems, but things need a little shaking up IMO.

And that is just my opinion, don't be hating Razz

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.04.30 21:42:00 - [8]
 

Personally I'd like to see ideas more along the lines of what CCP has already suggested: shifting the territory control mechanism to the stargates.

In fact I'd go so far as to say: Forget the artificial mechanic of sovereignty through POS deployment. Instead let players capture stargates, gaining more and more advantages as their stargate network within a constellation/region grows, leading to a de facto sovereignty rather than one imposed by an arbitrary measure like POS deployment.

Individual system sovereignty based on POS deployment will always inevitably lead to massive single battles to determine control. But spreading that conflict across all the stargates in a region, and granting benefits based on the sum of stargates that you control leads to a decentralized ongoing conflict. More small fights, all the time, across a whole constellation/region.

Cynojammers could still exist, but they wouldn't be so overpowering because territory control wouldn't hinge on the ability to deploy capital ships, although capital ships would still be powerful weapons and excellent mobile bases that aid in dominating a system.

With a stargate network of a certain size, jump bridge technology could be shifted to the gates themselves - if you control enough stargates in a region you gain the ability to travel quickly from one controlled stargate to another - unless the destination system is cynojammed.

Information warfare can also become part of the benefit of a stargate network - allowing controlling alliances to see who has been using their stargates, or sounding alarms when enemies jump through them.

All that's left is to come up with the method for gaining control of stargates.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.01 15:47:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Personally I'd like to see ideas more along the lines of what CCP has already suggested: shifting the territory control mechanism to the stargates.

In fact I'd go so far as to say: Forget the artificial mechanic of sovereignty through POS deployment. Instead let players capture stargates, gaining more and more advantages as their stargate network within a constellation/region grows, leading to a de facto sovereignty rather than one imposed by an arbitrary measure like POS deployment.



What do you say to people who would suggest that completely changes the game, makes it more like counterstrike in space and completely removes all empire building aspects of 0.0?

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.01 16:19:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Spoon Thumb
What do you say to people who would suggest that completely changes the game, makes it more like counterstrike in space and completely removes all empire building aspects of 0.0?


Good question - I think the key is to have the physical control of territory be synergized with the empire building infrastructure, rather than stem from the existence of it, as we have now.

POS deployment and logistics (empire building) can give tangible advantages to an Alliance that uses them under a Stargate capture system - maintaing POSes would still provide an important support structure for a holding Alliance, with production, research, shielded and gun-protected bases and potentially new abilities to aid in the protection of space and the stargate network.

But as it stands now, simply building the infrastructure allows you to own space, and sovereignty wars are about out-building your opponents. In strategy games and even real life war and politics though, infrastructure alone doesn't grant you sovereignty - you also need military control of borders and patrols of your space to maintain your hold. The control of borders and patrols allow sovereign entities to develop infrastructure, which in turn allows them the military capacity to maintain their borders and patrol their territory. Presently we have a system that uses the infrastructure, but not the military security principle.

Under a Stargate capture system, infrastructure could exist independent of military security and vice versa, but an Alliance that makes use of them both would have the most and best tools for maintaining control of territory.

And indeed I would think this sort of thing would be a fun and useful mechanic for an organization like CVA, who could maintain a secure network of Stargates to exert military control over a region to secure it for exploitation by a neutral infrastructure (that would in turn support the military control).

Political wars could then be fought to wrest control of the stargate network from it's holders, without (necessarily) affecting the infrastructure in that territory.

I am working on some ideas to specifically employ these philosophies, and perhaps later I'll throw them up here for comment.

Slickdrac
Minmatar
M Takumi Research and Production
East Empire Trade Federation
Posted - 2008.05.01 18:05:00 - [11]
 

This is my opinion on these things, it takes what Bane said about "twined" systems, and kind of builds off the stargate control thing, if I'm understanding some of you right (I somewhat skimmed this topic a bit, sorry Crying or Very sad)

I agree completely that the ability to have a Jumpbridge, AND a cyno jammer in a system is nonsense, yes the defender needs an advantage, but that's just silly, because of the capital crisis, sure, an attacker can bring in 150 BS to try and take down the Cyno, but what's the point when the defenders are just going to bring in 20 moms and 130 carriers? It simply causes static sov, no one will attack the place, it's suicide without server crashing numbers. Without the ability to just bring in a cap fleet for defense risk free in the middle of an attack, you'll have to either just let a cap ship sit in a hanger doing nothing except waiting for an attack beforehand, or have to offline the jammer and open yourself up to enemy encroachment while you get your defenses up.

Sov control, I like to travel around and see the sites, anyone who's been in any 0.0 alliance knows at least one or two systems that they can just sit in all day and not see a damned person come thru, blue, green, red, or otherwise. It's like laying claim to a bizarre gold rich island, and only 3 people are there to dig up the gold. I think Sov should be more like a "village-town-city-metropolis" deal, where the more people who are in/travel thru the system, i.e. the more popular it is, the better the sov is for that system, it's a much more accurate display of control for the systems, why should the gold island be considered a city, when 3 people live there, and then the next island has 20 people in there at all times, and it's also a city.

And as for cap ships, take away the insurance, make it hurt to lose again, at least more than the little "ow, I pricked my finger" you get when you lose one. Honestly, I don't know of any other ways to take care of the cap ship issue, it's just a part of more people playing leading to more money being made for alliances, leading to more money being able to spend.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.02 13:07:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 02/05/2008 13:12:44
Originally by: Kelsin

And indeed I would think this sort of thing would be a fun and useful mechanic for an organization like CVA, who could maintain a secure network of Stargates to exert military control over a region to secure it for exploitation by a neutral infrastructure (that would in turn support the military control).



Actually it would be tedious to go recapture all the gates after a fight, punish alliances with poor timezone coverage and just generally increase blobbing on gates. Sitting on a gate to defend it all day isn't exciting nor sensible as a tactic anyway and sometimes you need to wait a bit for tactical reasons anyway or just to form up properly and get organised before engaging.

POS warfare lets the attacker surprise in the initial assault, but gives the defender the option to choose their time of making a stand. This is artificial and unrealistic, but at least brings the two sides together at a set time, since afterall, it is a game and not RL, and people can't be expected to live Eve (even if some choose to).

The danger with stargate capping also is you end up with something like planetside where people end up going to bed in the heartland of their side's territory and wake up in enemy territory because things move so fast. This happens with Eve already, but is more where people take breaks for months rather than days or weeks. But with stargate capping I'd suggest it would take a lot less than a month to capture a region if you're the bigger force.

Stargate positioning is arbitrary at best and stargate capturing system would be pretty artificial. In WWII, they didn't stop making tanks just because the city was surrounded, far less because some magical rule from on high said they "weren't allowed"

---

I get what the problem is, but do you have a counter to the above issues relating to your solution?

Many members in CVA expressed dismay at the stargate capping idea for the reasons as stated above. Would you as my CSM representative be able to stand up to CCP and say "people have come to me and told me this is a crap idea because.." even if it would directly disadvantage your enemies and boost your own play style?

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:40:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Spoon Thumb
Actually it would be tedious to go recapture all the gates after a fight, punish alliances with poor timezone coverage and just generally increase blobbing on gates. Sitting on a gate to defend it all day isn't exciting nor sensible as a tactic anyway and sometimes you need to wait a bit for tactical reasons anyway or just to form up properly and get organised before engaging.


You've hit the nail on the head - these are exactly the issues are what would need to be addressed with a Stargate capturing system.

I'll go ahead and lay out a proposal, tell me if this doesn't cover those issues: (cont'd below)

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:42:00 - [14]
 

Capturable Stargates - The New Sovereignty

CCP Nozh presented the inspiration for this idea here: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=635828&page=16

But in the form he presented it, system sovereignty escalates to constellation sovereignty (at which point system sov is invulnerable) and likewise on to regional sovereignty (at which point constellation sovereignty is invulnerable). Here, I'll be proposing blowing that whole invulnerability concept wide open and creating something else entirely.

In the following premise, POS's are removed from the territory-holding equation and Sovereignty as we know it does not exist. Imagine the unclaimed and wild depths of 0.0 space...

The Kernel

The basic unit of territory control is the Stargate. A group of players may claim a Stargate in the name of their Alliance. Another Alliance may wrest control of that Stargate away and take it for themselves. The exact mechanic by which this occurs is left up in the air for now. Suffice it to say - Alliances capture individual Stargates. But whatever that mechanic is, a Stargate is never "immune" to being contested (although it does have a reinforcement period as described below).

A captured Stargate acts just like a regular, unclaimed Stargate but with one added benefit - an Alliance member may access the gate to see a log of all recent travel through the gate.

Alliances may also set a "reinforcement time" on a Stargate they own. If another Alliance contests control of the gate, it goes into a "reinforced" mode until the appointed time of day - e.g. an Alliance could set a gate of theirs to reinforce until 14:00, and if an enemy contests it, the gate goes into reinforced mode until 14:00 Eve Time, at which point there is a 1 hour period during which a defender may 're-claim' the gate or an attacker may capture it. If neither occurs the gate reverts to neutral status. Thus contested stargates cannot be flipped in ownership until up to 24 hours after the initial assault.


The Network

As an Alliance owns more and more Stargates within a constellation, they begin to gain additional advantages to aid in their control of territory. As their Stargate Network grows, new abilities are unlocked. Below are some possible Stargate Networks and the benefits granted.

Control All Stargates In A System: Anchor Cynojammer

If all entrances into a system are controlled, the resulting network can support a Cynojammer in system. This iteration of the Cynojammer could be anchored at a POS as it is now, or as a standalone structure. The Alliance must maintain control of all Stargates in the system or the Cynojammer will deactivate. A Cynojammer prevents the use of the Regional Jump Bridge ability (see below).

(At first glance it might seem that this is no improvement on the current state of the Cynojammer, and in fact it's easier to set one up! Note however that Capital ships are no longer vital to territory control under this system, since the destruction and defense of POSs is not tied to territory control anymore.)

Control 50% Of Stargates In A Constellation: Anchor Stargate Guns

While an Alliance controls 50% or more of the Stargates in a Constellation, the Network generates sufficient power to allow the anchoring of Mannable Sentry Guns at controlled Stargates. These guns can be interfaced with by Alliance members to act in a similar manner to POS guns. (Perhaps requiring a highslot module to control the gun). If the number of controlled Stargates drops below 50%, the Network can no longer power the guns and they go offline.

(cont'd below)

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:43:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 02/05/2008 15:21:40
Control 75% Of Stargates In A Constellation: Anchor Outpost

With the control of 75% or more of the Stargates in a constellation comes the power to anchor Player Outposts. These are the same as the current Player Outposts, and cannot be conquered unless the Stargate Network of the controlling Alliance drops below 75% (but hopefully explodable once conquered!)

EDIT: Now that I read this over again, it probably makes more sense for an Outpost to not be "conquerable" per se, but to belong to whatever Alliance controls 75% of the Stargates in a Constellation - thus if you want to take an Outpost away (or make it explode!), you need to dominantly control the Constellation.

Control 50% Of Stargates In A Region: Network Intel

On the Regional level, controlling 50% of the gates in a region brings online networked intelligence and monitoring capability - usage of controlled gates by non-allied forces prompts an Alliance-wide alert noting the gate that was accessed. Incursions into Alliance territory thus become more difficult as intruders "set off the alarm bell" allowing the Alliance to mount a response.

With Ambulation the Alliance's Outpost could have a room with a map of the Region, showing controlled stargates and pinging incursions.

Control 75% Of Stargates In A Region: Network Jump Bridge

The Network's true power is unleashed once 75% or more of the Stargates in a region are controlled by a single Alliance: The Jump Bridge Network. With this ability, the combined might of the interlinked Stargates allows a ship to enter a gate at any point in the regional network and come out at another controlled Stargate.

----------------------------------------------------

And there it is. No artificial Sovereignty granting immunity to conquering - an Alliance's network is vulnerable throughout. If they cannot maintain consistent control over the whole of their territory, they run the risk of losing ground. The rewards for a high level of control are great, but it requires that constant vigilance against incursion be maintained.

Exactly how constant a vigilance depends on the mechanic used for capturing Stargates. CCP Nozh mentioned the idea of a timed capture that takes less time the more ship tonnage that is used to take the gate - i.e. it would take a Frigate gang an hour to capture a gate, but a cruiser gang would only take 30 minutes and a battleship gang 15 minutes, or something like that. Likewise, a minimum number of ships might be required to capture a gate, just to set a bar.

A massive fleet looking to make an incursion on an enemy held region would do best splitting up to take as many gates simultaneously as they can - since if they went with a blob and took them one by one, the would only take a few gates an hour as opposed to the dozens they could capture if they split up.

Thus, the territory an Alliance controls is based on the size of their Stargate Network. POS logistics become the realm of industry only, and not territory control. Capital ships can be used less as siege and anti-siege weapons and perhaps become more of forward base and for clearing out enemy POS's from overrun territory.

Melwitax
Posted - 2008.05.03 05:21:00 - [16]
 

The fundamental approach to overcoming problems in Eve should almost never be solved by nerfs. Rather such solutions should come from the adaptation of tactics and technology to a situation. If cynojammers prevent the offensive deployment of cap ships then alternative ships should be developed to fill the gap. Defensive cruisers and frigates can be developed that can shoot down a carrier's fighter's or block a dread's batteries. Tier 4 and 5 battleships designed to act as cap ship and pos busters could be deployed. While these ships would not be as individually as powerful as their larger counterparts. They would be cheaper to field in large numbers and capable of inflicting massive economic and military damage on an opponent. Steaths ships armed with anti-ewar devices (specifically to counter jamming) could be designed to disrupt cynojammers and allow windows of opportunity for cap ship fleets to jump in and engage an enemy. Heck allowing ships to inflict massive damage through kamikazee tactics would almost instantly change the nature of fleet warfare and none of this would require any existing item to be substantially nerfed.

My .02 isk.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.03 16:57:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Melwitax
The fundamental approach to overcoming problems in Eve should almost never be solved by nerfs. Rather such solutions should come from the adaptation of tactics and technology to a situation.


I think it's entirely situational - sometimes a 'balancing' is necessary. But in this particular case I feel it goes beyond a question of balance and instead territory control in Eve is (rightfully, I think) headed towards a complete re-imagining of the system.

Since CCP already seems to be heading that way, I'd like to see the CSM members dive right in and help envision a whole new system, rather than dragging their feet and pushing for minor tweaks to the status quo. After all, if CCP is already developing ideas for a whole new territory warfare system then it's far wiser to get in on the ground floor and help shape it than stubbornly resist and have no say in how it all turns out.

Nofonno
Amarr
Posted - 2008.05.03 17:41:00 - [18]
 

These topics are too complex to comment on them sufficiently within a forum post. And I admit it's long since I've been around alliances and 0.0. Nevertheless, my 2 ISK:

Capital ships... two things: 1) initial design of capital ships is borked -- their names do not reflect what they should be limited to do/able to do best; plus my opition is that such large a vessel should NOT be pilotable by a single person. 2) There's no middle ground between "ordinary" ships and capital ships -- how many ships use the advanced spaceship commnad anyway (except freighters)?

Sovereignity and POSes should be rethought as well... sorry I won't elaborate in detail, however several pointers on this:
1) sovereignity should act more like a field -- sovereignity should be easily maintanable in systems that are active and more close together (satelites or enclaves should experience higher effort to have their sovereignity maintained).
2) for POSes, I recall there's an article in F&I forum, proposing modular POSes, with nice diagrams... if anyone finds it, post a link Laughing I admit I'm too lazy right now.

And for the new POS structures... I really don't feel like an expert over here.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.05 00:25:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Kelsin

The basic unit of territory control is the Stargate. A group of players may claim a Stargate in the name of their Alliance. Another Alliance may wrest control of that Stargate away and take it for themselves. The exact mechanic by which this occurs is left up in the air for now.


Yes well this is the problem. You've kinda glossed over the core mechanic, what you're actually going to be doing to take these stargates that are so important.

Get this bit wrong and you completely screw up the game, hence why people are so concerned and would rather see a change to the current system to make it better than a total revamp

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.10 17:16:00 - [20]
 

Well Spoon, I think it's pretty simple to come up with a good claiming mechanic, and the exact method of capturing stargate is of minor significance in the grand scheme of things. CCP has already floated a timed capture idea where a gang of ships camps a gate for some amount of time to capture it.

But in no way does the viability of the system hinge on that detail, quite the opposite - the important thing is how control of multiple gates adds up to territorial control. And the best, most dynamic way of allowing territory control without it being a monolithic system.

Mike Yass
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.05.10 17:35:00 - [21]
 

(not a candidate)

Cyno jammers need to simply be a feature of Sov4 systems. Currently, nearly every system under threat of being captured is cyno jammed. To take down a jammer you need a large battleship fleet (60+) and a large cap fleet(30-40) to siege the the poses. You then need to hold the system for two days until the POSes come out of reinforced. The numbers required to do this makes it impossible for smaller alliances to take space from large alliances. This game needs less mega alliances like GS, and more small space holding entities. It also pushes the game towards Cap-Ships online, something which I don't want to see.

IF you put jammers only in Sov4 system, and removing the jammer would be final blow to the constellation. Downing them would only occur once a month or so, so getting everyone to poop sock it would be doable. People would be willing to deal with the painful process that comes with killing one if wasn't a necessary step for nearly every system in EVE.

Nerfing the cynojammer would help, but I think the first step is to simply reduce the number of them.


 

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