Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BloodBird]

Seri, not only those. It may well disrupt the jump routes of industrialists as well.

Acceptable consequence. I'm more than happy to come back to EVE and play in FW even if I have to get used to the far more interesting Freighter trip ops corps had to live with back when the vast majority of EVE's population had a functional spine.

If there is something I can't fucking stand, it's "I win" buttons and weak-ass losers pushing to the bottom line to get it. It kills the competition, it kills the fun, it kills the interest in in logging in for me. Well, that and many, many other things.

But honestly, having to use freighters or even hauler gangs full of stuff to get you logistics going will be an improvement, a MAJOR improvement, and the loss of null-bears and other lazy fuck-wads being able to send a few ships that "looks like an honest gang, is obviously a cyno-trap" to cyno in a huge fleet of capitals on anything that moves will be a god-send liberation from excuses to remain docked. You can still find the gang or ship you attacked was a trap - usually is - but frankly, so long as it's not a major source of capital ships being dropped on you it's all good - still likely to be a fight you can't win, but atl it's not guaranteed that it will be a losing fight. And you won't have to keep several friendly capitals pilots in ships, waiting for your call and counter-drop either. More fun for everyone.

This was a bad idea when it was in the game the first time, it will be the second time. Either it's not worthwhile to do or it completely invalidates losing security status.

It beats ratting. Someone who wants to get his sec status up has basically no other chance than that. Now he can toss ISK at the problem, ISK he probably got by blowing someone up. That aside, -10 sec status is a pride thing for some people.

Entirely irrelevant. -10 is supposed to be a PUNISHMENT, not a joy-ride that you can get away from easy enough. I laugh every time a -10 pirate who brags about his sec status is one moment bitches about his "consequences" in the next. Pirates who bitch about their "lot in life" annoy me. Frankly, being a pirate is a choice, and all choices in EVE have consequences. Some of those were created by the system. Some are abused by the system to become irrelevant. Some were created by players. "Welcome to Hulkageddon, making sport out of miners and mining the most dangerous think to do in EVE-online. Because heaven forbid we let other people play the game the way they want to do it."

Piracy has consequences, among them the fact you can't get around in high sec as easily as you did before, or the anyone can shoot you, or that upping your sec-status takes time and - dear god - effort.

*EDIT* Well this got a bit more hostile-sounding than originally intended, but it gets the message across. I am not in favor of anything that can be abused even easier than it already is to make life simpler for heavily negative-sec folks, it's already to simple to avoid dropping that far as things go, and down-right profitable to up it, either through missions or ratting. If that's considered boring, perhaps a change of play-style is in order.

[orange]

There was much, much debate in the FW round table session about cynojammers. Some people are deeply unhappy with the idea.

Any way of giving FW "consequences that matter" is also going to piss someone off. It's a fascinating debate to watch.

Seri, not only those. It may well disrupt the jump routes of industrialists as well.

I think there are ways to implement cynojammers that hinder the big toys, but minimize the impact on logistics.

JFs make logistics easier, they do in a single jump with two pilots what takes a group of 5 a week to do with Blockade Runners (I know, LDIS made that transition).

As an example, jumping into low-sec systems might cost more in terms of Isotopes or require you to be closer to the destination to jump there or both.  Make this dependent on the security status of the system as well.

Suddenly hot-dropping a low-sec entry system (0.4 sec) means you can't be hiding in deep null-sec, but instead have to already be in low-sec or border areas.  If all you are doing is shipping "product" from Intaki to Covryn (and hi-sec beyond), you should be fine.

And that may be as simple as Jump Drive Calibration Skill modifiers.

(Jump Drive Calibration-Sec Status*10)=Jump Drive Calibration modifier.

And then cynojammers as part of infrastructure upgrades that can be built up by a militia, but also attacked by anyone.

[Lyn Farel]

I think there are ways to implement cynojammers that hinder the big toys, but minimize the impact on logistics.

JFs make logistics easier, they do in a single jump with two pilots what takes a group of 5 a week to do with Blockade Runners (I know, LDIS made that transition).

As an example, jumping into low-sec systems might cost more in terms of Isotopes or require you to be closer to the destination to jump there or both.  Make this dependent on the security status of the system as well.

Suddenly hot-dropping a low-sec entry system (0.4 sec) means you can't be hiding in deep null-sec, but instead have to already be in low-sec or border areas.  If all you are doing is shipping "product" from Intaki to Covryn (and hi-sec beyond), you should be fine.

And that may be as simple as Jump Drive Calibration Skill modifiers.

(Jump Drive Calibration-Sec Status*10)=Jump Drive Calibration modifier.

Nullsec capital spammers do not care about this. They have the biggest numbers, they have the superiority on the area. What that would bring to them is just slighlty more pain to move their caps and a ridiculous little increased risk.

And then cynojammers as part of infrastructure upgrades that can be built up by a militia, but also attacked by anyone.

Militias do not have the backbone to defend their own structures against nullsec powerblocs.

[orange]

Lyn, based on your response, it has to be an all or nothing solution (and should include all of low-sec not just the FW space).  This means either having capitals in low-sec or barring them entirely.

At which point, the massive numbers of some of the 0.0 power blocs just means they show up in large battleship fleets.

[BloodBird]

There is a considerable difference in chance for a FW fleet to defeat a large number of null-bears in battleships and below, than defeating a small number of bait ships with a dozen capitals as back-up. Ultimately if the null-bears who still want to roam low-sec to mess about with the militias can't bring their capitals, they will adapt or piss off, but the final effect is still massively in favor of better fights, if only because the odds got considerably better for the low-sec dwellers.

Also, if carriers and jump-freighters can't jump to low-sec under militia control anymore, this will revitalize piracy and anti-piracy simply because there will be far more hauler/freighter traffic in low-sec to move gear around, thus more security, thus more interest in "clearing out" pirates, and overall far more action, action based around sub-capitals, not a cookie-cutter hot-drop setup looking to farm kill-mails.

Far as I see it cyno-jammer staus in militia-held low-sec is one of the things that will improve low-sec overall. Other ideas might be to improve the ore quantity and quality to be an honest upgrade from high-sec but not equal to null-sec, and you might even see more industry and thus even more ships about and more action, but that's likely another topic.

[Gottii]

While Im likely to get grief for the idea, I think logistics in EVE should be harder, not easier.  Greater logistics requirements means greater need for strategy, stellar geography means more, larger opponents have soft spots for smaller opponents to aim at, and similar things that could make nulsec and lowsec a bit more interesting.

If you want a massive space empire, you and your alliance should have to work at it. 

[Lyn Farel]

Lyn, based on your response, it has to be an all or nothing solution (and should include all of low-sec not just the FW space).  This means either having capitals in low-sec or barring them entirely.

At which point, the massive numbers of some of the 0.0 power blocs just means they show up in large battleship fleets.

Why should it include all of lowsec and not only FW ? Cynojammed FW systems is fine, no need to jamm all the other lowsecs.

Then, what basically attract nullsec people in FW areas is the presence of isolated capitals, or small fleets of capitals. This is why they hotdrop here. Or just because its loloverkill to hotdrop a 30 men BS fleet.

Also, nullsec coming in BS fleets, aside from being very unusual (why the hell would they come in BS fleets, see above), is easier to counter. Militia have tremendous difficulties to field huge and well equiped capital fleets. If you reach 10 capitals, thats quite epic in itself. They already have difficulties to field more than 50-60 people BS fleets...

[orange]

Also, if carriers and jump-freighters can't jump to low-sec under militia control anymore, this will revitalize piracy and anti-piracy simply because there will be far more hauler/freighter traffic in low-sec to move gear around, ...

Far as I see it cyno-jammer staus in militia-held low-sec is one of the things that will improve low-sec overall. Other ideas might be to improve the ore quantity and quality to be an honest upgrade from high-sec but not equal to null-sec, and you might even see more industry and thus even more ships about and more action, but that's likely another topic.

Why should it include all of lowsec and not only FW ? Cynojammed FW systems is fine, no need to jamm all the other lowsecs.

I think you will see less hauler/freighter traffic through FW areas if those areas are the only systems cyno jammed in some way.

The militias* can base from (or already are largely based in) high-sec systems less than a dozen jumps from each other.  These bases have pre-existing healthy or growing markets to support both the missioning done there and the PvP market.

Cyno-jamming of low-sec FW will place a significant limit on the growth potential for low-sec industry in the FW areas.  Anyone wanting to grow beyond high-sec industry in low-sec is likely to pursue it in a different region, constellation, etc since it will allow for easier access utilizing Jump Freighters.

My corporation had 4 or 5 people flying Blockade Runners through multiple bottle-necks daily in order to maintain a few Starbases in Black Rise.  Even just moving a single set of Starbase tower & modules took dozens of trips.   /sarcasm/ I am sure pirates loved it when a little more than 9,000 m3 of Chromium and Nitrogen Isotopes is what dropped. /sarcasm/

*Gallente/Caldari is what I am most familiar with, maybe Amarr/Minmatar is different.

I am also coming at this from the perspective of who utilized the tool to avoid Tech3/Faction Pirate gate camps and who didn't have anywhere near enough ISK to hire mercenaries every time we wanted to fly a 300k m3 of fuel & materials to our low-sec starbases and manufacturing (weekly).

I clearly have a different interest.

While Im likely to get grief for the idea, I think logistics in EVE should be harder, not easier.  Greater logistics requirements means greater need for strategy, stellar geography means more, larger opponents have soft spots for smaller opponents to aim at, and similar things that could make nulsec and lowsec a bit more interesting.

If you want a massive space empire, you and your alliance should have to work at it. 

I don't disagree at all, which is why I fully support cyno-degradation in low-sec.  What I do not support is the automatic closing of low-sec to cynos.  I think barring cynos from low-sec, even FW low-sec will make the transition between FW & null-sec harder.

Maybe it is something simple like only being able to cyno to 0.1 space from null-sec and then you can cyno to any low-sec you want (unless a player maintained cyno-block is introduced).  Maybe Titans and Motherships are barred from jumping into low-sec altogether.

[Lyn Farel]

Ok I see your point. But I am not sure your cyno degradation solves anything in the end. If I have the choice to use my capital ship, even with 2 or 3 more jumps to do, I will do it. Unless it costs so much that it becomes a nightmare. And in this case, it is not far from removing all capital access to lowsec, for what matters...

What I would like to see is not a jump degradation as you say, but a cyno delay. Light a cyno in low sec and wait for [insert time] for it to be ready to jump your caps in.

OR

Light a cyno in low sec and depending how many fights there are in the system OR how many ships around the cyno, wait for [insert time].

Or something in these lines...

[orange]

Light a cyno in low sec and depending how many fights there are in the system OR how many ships around the cyno, wait for [insert time].

The delay makes sense to me. A single ship jumping remains the same, but 30 Titans will take 30 min-1 hr to get on the field?

If capitals enter low-sec piecemeal, then that makes deployment more of an operation or requires a lot more cynos.  It also makes them vulnerable to counter-attack as they come in one every few minutes.

[Lyn Farel]

Yes I like these ideas.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Orange - how would the number of ships involved be figured?

If it's connected to the number of ships jumping to one cyno, what's to keep a spam of cynoalts from occuring?

If it's connected to the number of ships entering a system in general, what's to keep people from spamming a bunch of ships to forcibly delay enemy reinforcements?

If it is by the number from a single fleet that are jumping in, what is to prevent people from dividing fleets up?


In general, I remain highly cautious about artificial constrictions on players' ability to do things, as I feel that it's far more likely that players will alternately find ways to circumvent the system to their benefit or exploit it to others' detriment.

[orange]

Orange - how would the number of ships involved be figured?

I didn't address that at all.

If it's connected to the number of ships jumping to one cyno, what's to keep a spam of cynoalts from occuring?

A spam of cynoalts (or a local with a heavy presence of alt-type characters) is an indicator that someone might be jumping in a ton of capitals.  But maybe we should look at something different altogether?

If it's connected to the number of ships entering a system in general, what's to keep people from spamming a bunch of ships to forcibly delay enemy reinforcements?

If I pursued one based on the number of ships entering a system, I would only introduce mass/sec restrictions and apply the rules across the board.  IE Gates, Wormholes, and Cyno-Jumps.

A stargate might have a fixed kg/sec.  It slows down heavy fleets even more than warp-speed, it might take a battleship squadron several seconds to transit through a gate together, while a frigate squadron jumps through all at once.

A wormhole already has limits on it from my understanding.  A wormhole has both a max allowed to transit and a max total allowed.

A cyno-jump might have a fixed kg/sec allowed like a jump gate.  A system might also have a max kg/sec for cynos allowed, putting an upper limit to the kg/sec & number of cynos that are useful.  Another option would be to have additional cynos add to the total kg/sec allowed in a degrading manner, such that the 3rd or 4th cyno does not really enable a much faster jump rate.  It would have to be a system total number of cynos.  (I hope that made some sense)

If it is by the number from a single fleet that are jumping in, what is to prevent people from dividing fleets up?

I would avoid this as a mechanic.

In general, I remain highly cautious about artificial constrictions on players' ability to do things, as I feel that it's far more likely that players will alternately find ways to circumvent the system to their benefit or exploit it to others' detriment.

I am just throwing out ideas for discussion.  Clearly there is a desire to hamper the involvement of large numbers of capitals in low-sec warfare, but this has to be balanced against such things as low-sec Starbase operations.

[Ulphus]

The limitations discussed in the round table with CCP were more along the lines of having limited time of cyno-jamming, to turn it into more of a tactical limitation than a strategic one.

I don't think that CCP are going to try to make a FW cyno-jammer that works in any way differently to the standard one, except in how you put it up. Plugging an existing one in is much less complicated coding exercise than making it behave differently.

CCP seemed to think that systems wouldn't be jammed on a permanent basis, since either people would shoot at the jammer, or would run plexes/shoot the enemy and spend loyalty points to reduce the control of the people with the cyno-jammer to the point where they can't support it.

I think that the time limitation might happen if systems started being overwhelmingly jammed, or they might start charging LP per day or something. That LP is LP that isn't used by pilots to cash in and pay the bills, so in some ways it's an LP sink. Since they're also looking at changing the LP rewards so missions get less LP than plexing which gets less reward than combat, I don't see people maintaining jammers where it's not critical to their current strategic goals.

They also mentioned allowing corps to tax LP so that the corp could spend LP towards coherent goals, which might also make things interesting.

[Saikoyu]

There was footage, in the art panel.

This. They showed the effects of shots doing both shield and armour/structure damage. It looked really really pretty.

I think I saw a still shot of this somewhere, shield flashes localized to damage and the ship actually looking like it was spilling atmo and on fire, was that it?  And before anyone asks, no I don't remember where I saw that, on a link fromt he eve website I think.