open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Cyno Jammers & Jump Bridges
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic

BlondieBC
Minmatar
Galactic Exploration and Missions
Posted - 2008.06.01 05:56:00 - [181]
 

BS fleets can beat cynojammed sytems with caps with planning. Seen it done multiple times to at least 4 allainces.

I like the way the work now.

NerftheSmurf
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.04 02:24:00 - [182]
 

Move the requirement of jammers to be sov4, remove the immunity of sov4 poses to being reinforced/killed.

Shrouded Nameless
Posted - 2008.06.04 05:34:00 - [183]
 


Wrathamon Starfury
Gallente
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.06.04 14:54:00 - [184]
 

Way to go folks, you just locked your capitals out of your own systems. So how are you suppose to get your capitals back into your jammed station system? Drop the cyno jammer everytime someone needs to get in to the system??

A jump bridge is just that, a jump bridge. Jump gates do not allow it because the ships are to big to fit through the gate, since jump bridges open a cyno field in open space they fit.

Until there is a way to get friendly capitals back into their cyno jammed systems without dropping jammers everytime at 30 minutes a pop dont change anything.


Wrathamon Starfury
Gallente
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.06.04 14:58:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Conrad Rock
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.


Last I checked it takes 30 minutes to online the jammer not a few minutes.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.04 18:46:00 - [186]
 

Not apporved. Advantage should always go to a defender. Strategically it always has in warfare. Defenders have dug in, fortified their position, set down roots, invested resources in time and material to make what they hold profitable and defensible.

The high number of goons supporting this issue should speak for itself regarding the style of play the OP hopes to support. Goons defeat by using larger numbers of pilots. For the most part they hold few systems compared to their size. They prefer to rip up others rather than take systems to hold and develope for themselves. Weakening the defensive capabilities of those they attack would be nice for them. SmileAlso, of course, they've been instructed to support this issue.

The OP's suggestion would have made the BoB/goon war a little easier for the goons, huh.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.05 06:20:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Not apporved. Advantage should always go to a defender. Strategically it always has in warfare. Defenders have dug in, fortified their position, set down roots, invested resources in time and material to make what they hold profitable and defensible.

The high number of goons supporting this issue should speak for itself regarding the style of play the OP hopes to support. Goons defeat by using larger numbers of pilots. For the most part they hold few systems compared to their size. They prefer to rip up others rather than take systems to hold and develope for themselves. Weakening the defensive capabilities of those they attack would be nice for them. SmileAlso, of course, they've been instructed to support this issue.

The OP's suggestion would have made the BoB/goon war a little easier for the goons, huh.


Thanks for the alt post. Also you might want to check a Sov map, "goons" have far from a few systems.

Dray
Caldari
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.06.05 07:01:00 - [188]
 

Nope.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.06.05 07:06:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Well this is interesting. You have to make a post to support the topic: So we have to get 11,000 posts to force an issue.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha


PLUS 1!!!! Laughing

Sworn Absent
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.05 09:46:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Not apporved. Advantage should always go to a defender. Strategically it always has in warfare. Defenders have dug in, fortified their position, set down roots, invested resources in time and material to make what they hold profitable and defensible.

The high number of goons supporting this issue should speak for itself regarding the style of play the OP hopes to support. Goons defeat by using larger numbers of pilots. For the most part they hold few systems compared to their size. They prefer to rip up others rather than take systems to hold and develope for themselves. Weakening the defensive capabilities of those they attack would be nice for them. SmileAlso, of course, they've been instructed to support this issue.

The OP's suggestion would have made the BoB/goon war a little easier for the goons, huh.


You really hate goons, huh? Shame you fail to realise this isn't just about goons.

It will effect goons, just as it will effect everyone else (if anything changes). Maybe if you actually read the thread, you would see all the support from people in other space holding alliances...

Ha! Who am I kidding? You're the alt of someone with a chip on your shoulder who has been following every thread that might be related to Goons at all, being as negative and un-constructive as possible. At the same time you try to label us as disruptive. You're not fooling anyone. Stop posting. If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, don't stop us having one.

Somatic Neuron
Posted - 2008.06.05 10:45:00 - [191]
 

disagree with the intent of this. A cyno jammer shouldn't in any way prevent the owning and friendly forces from deploying any assets into the system. So while letting capitals use the jump bridge may seem odd, it is at least a way to give some advantage to the defender.

Lo3d3R
Mos Eisley Social Club
Posted - 2008.06.05 11:03:00 - [192]
 

... intented mechanic... or accidental flaw... can't believe some of the issues posted, this one is also a jaw dropper... what a fair fight... not

...


Betty Beatser
Posted - 2008.06.05 12:31:00 - [193]
 

Support + Caps + POS Vs Support is a little too imba in favour of the defenders.

If you want to get your friendly caps into the system, drop the jammer and provide a window of opportunity for the opposition to do the same. Being able to pick that window is still enough of an advantage for the defenders.

Jeirth
Minmatar
Republic Military School

Posted - 2008.06.06 11:29:00 - [194]
 

Out of balance as it stands

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:32:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Waterfowl Democracy
Thanks for the alt post. Also you might want to check a Sov map, "goons" have far from a few systems.
Read more carefully in the future before you critique. It'll leave less egg on your face. I said they have few systems relative to their size. i.e. A lot of goons and relatively few systems. It points to a style of play.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:38:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: Sworn Absent
You really hate goons, huh? Shame you fail to realise this isn't just about goons.

It will effect goons, just as it will effect everyone else (if anything changes). Maybe if you actually read the thread, you would see all the support from people in other space holding alliances...

Ha! Who am I kidding? You're the alt of someone with a chip on your shoulder who has been following every thread that might be related to Goons at all, being as negative and un-constructive as possible. At the same time you try to label us as disruptive. You're not fooling anyone. Stop posting. If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, don't stop us having one.
My post was about the relationship between attackers and defenders who've had a chance to "dig in". Goons AND BoB are a good example of this and that is why I used them. It's a shame you didn't realize my post wasn't just about goons. I suppose you were in too great a hurry to express your anger.

The recent war between goons and BoB is an ideal example of the two strategies. You had on the one hand, a large attack force bent on demolition. On the other hand you had a well dug in defender. BoB had a large number of systems, well developed, compared to the number of members they had. Goons had few systems, not particularly well developed, compared to the larger number of members they had. Last I checked membership numbers, goons had twice as many members as BoB. BoB's systems are/were in one area. Goons systems are/were spread all over the place.

Bearing the above in mind, the proposed change would benefit the style of play typified by goons and penalize the style of play typified by BoB.

These are not so much negative observations of goonswarm as they are accurate. It's amazing how you lot can recruit for, practice and even brag about a certain style of play and then complain when someone comments on it.

Merely because some of my posts are inconvenient to you does not mean they are negative or unconstructive and that's a really funny accusation coming from a goon. Yeah, yeah, you're right. That last was negative, but you really earned it. Enjoy.

Assuming I have the power to stop your discussion, reaonable or otherwise, is crediting me with far too much ability. However, I truly appreciate the compliment.

Regards,
Windjammer

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:25:00 - [197]
 

Supported.

Dontcheck Availability
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 16:52:00 - [198]
 

posting to vote in favor

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.09 17:02:00 - [199]
 


Cursive
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.09 19:46:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Sworn Absent
You really hate goons, huh? Shame you fail to realise this isn't just about goons.

It will effect goons, just as it will effect everyone else (if anything changes). Maybe if you actually read the thread, you would see all the support from people in other space holding alliances...

Ha! Who am I kidding? You're the alt of someone with a chip on your shoulder who has been following every thread that might be related to Goons at all, being as negative and un-constructive as possible. At the same time you try to label us as disruptive. You're not fooling anyone. Stop posting. If you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, don't stop us having one.
My post was about the relationship between attackers and defenders who've had a chance to "dig in". Goons AND BoB are a good example of this and that is why I used them. It's a shame you didn't realize my post wasn't just about goons. I suppose you were in too great a hurry to express your anger.

The recent war between goons and BoB is an ideal example of the two strategies. You had on the one hand, a large attack force bent on demolition. On the other hand you had a well dug in defender. BoB had a large number of systems, well developed, compared to the number of members they had. Goons had few systems, not particularly well developed, compared to the larger number of members they had. Last I checked membership numbers, goons had twice as many members as BoB. BoB's systems are/were in one area. Goons systems are/were spread all over the place.

Bearing the above in mind, the proposed change would benefit the style of play typified by goons and penalize the style of play typified by BoB.

These are not so much negative observations of goonswarm as they are accurate. It's amazing how you lot can recruit for, practice and even brag about a certain style of play and then complain when someone comments on it.

Merely because some of my posts are inconvenient to you does not mean they are negative or unconstructive and that's a really funny accusation coming from a goon. Yeah, yeah, you're right. That last was negative, but you really earned it. Enjoy.

Assuming I have the power to stop your discussion, reaonable or otherwise, is crediting me with far too much ability. However, I truly appreciate the compliment.

Regards,
Windjammer


Jade Constantine alt?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.06.09 22:21:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Cursive
Jade Constantine alt?
If you will go to page 2, post 41 of this thread, you'll see that Jade supports this issue. I do not.

Silly goon. Tricks are for those who know how to use them. Thank your for coming, try again.Smile

Regards,
Windjammer

Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.10 20:47:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: Wrathamon Starfury
Way to go folks, you just locked your capitals out of your own systems. So how are you suppose to get your capitals back into your jammed station system? Drop the cyno jammer everytime someone needs to get in to the system??

A jump bridge is just that, a jump bridge. Jump gates do not allow it because the ships are to big to fit through the gate, since jump bridges open a cyno field in open space they fit.

Until there is a way to get friendly capitals back into their cyno jammed systems without dropping jammers everytime at 30 minutes a pop dont change anything.



But there is the problem, it becomes increasingly difficult for an attacker to have any ability to get their caps into system to counter your caps. They have to send in bs fleets in order to shoot a cynojammer module with about a million HP, while under possible fire from enemy capitals, supercaps, and by extension DD's with no oppertunity to get their own cap support into the system to allow the support fleet to work.

Essentially to fix you're problem you can lower the cynojammers onlining/offlineing timers. But if you want to move caps freely around your systems you should leave the cynojammers offline, and online them if the system is under threat.

If you take capitals out of the picture, the defenders already have an advantage. They don't need an overwhelming advantage such that you have to be a megablob to attack it.

Anyway the best proposal is to make the jump bridges into jump gates, and allow any ship that can use system gates be able to use jump gates, but any ship that cannot use jump gates will have to cyno to a POS cyno module (you know those modules actually exist right? and are disabled by cyno jammers).

Rektide
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:39:00 - [203]
 

totally obvious

Orb Lati
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.06.11 01:55:00 - [204]
 

I would have to disagree with the op. I don't see an issue of jump bridges being active in a cyno jambed system.
From a RP perspective i never thought Jump Bridges utilized cyno's.
From a Game play perspective, an alliance shouldn't have cripple it self logistically in order to utilize the protection of a cyno-jammer on a Deathstar.

If there is a balance issue then you should be looking at fuel / mass ratio for using a bridge not saying it shouldn't be allowed.

Daveydweeb
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.06.11 06:47:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: Daveydweeb on 11/06/2008 06:47:24
x

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
Posted - 2008.06.11 09:12:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: Lord WarATron on 11/06/2008 09:13:33
Originally by: Yorda
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 ******ed 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.


It appears that perhaps you do not understand pos mechanics and fleet mechanics. I do not know why you assume that "a smaller alliance will never stand a chance".I find it irnoic that the brige nerf was being promoted as postive for the small alliance's, when the reality is that it actually only hurts small alliances and makes no difference to other alliances (other than those who use risk-free dread tactics)

But from your perspective, it appears you are actually against the smaller alliance, which is a strange change of stance. Is this the truth now coming out?

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.11 09:27:00 - [207]
 

Yorda, stop posting everywhere. You're dumb.


Also, Serenity Steele has been put in charge of framing this issue for the CSM. This is kind of unfortunate because Serenity doesn't have a clue about anything. Hell, he wants a form of CONCORD to operate in 0.0 space. Sounds like just the man to talk about capital and POS warfare doesn't it?

Banedon Runestar
Gallente
Gravity Mining and Manufacturing Inc
The Company LLC
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:27:00 - [208]
 

This is a good question. It needs resolving.

Xerpex
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.14 10:02:00 - [209]
 


Towelieban
Minmatar
Universal Army
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.06.22 12:53:00 - [210]
 

giving my support to this


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

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