These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions

Author
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#1 - 2015-11-08 18:04:07 UTC
As title suggests, which means you can still covert cyno. Pirate

With perfect, 100% reliable and instant intel, the recent nerfing of null-null wormholes, mobile depots to instantly refit, and the proliferation of ratting capitals, null is comparatively risk free compared to the rewards. Rating capitals are simply not vulnerable enough given the difficulties of projecting your own capitals into null, and given the ability to cyno in a response fleet.

You'd think after a while, other pirate factions would learn this trick from the Sansha.



Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Nyalnara
Marauder Initiative
#2 - 2015-11-08 18:48:58 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
As title suggests, which means you can still covert cyno. Pirate

With perfect, 100% reliable and instant intel, the recent nerfing of null-null wormholes, mobile depots to instantly refit, and the proliferation of ratting capitals, null is comparatively risk free compared to the rewards. Rating capitals are simply not vulnerable enough given the difficulties of projecting your own capitals into null, and given the ability to cyno in a response fleet.

You'd think after a while, other pirate factions would learn this trick from the Sansha.


No. Because some people enjoy hot-dropping ratting carriers with something bigger than Blops.

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.

Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-11-08 20:50:34 UTC
Mobile Cyno inhibitors are in the game...
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#4 - 2015-11-08 21:46:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vic Jefferson
Daerrol wrote:
Mobile Cyno inhibitors are in the game...


Mobile cyno inhibs were a wonderful addition to the game and they can produce amazing results if you use them tactically and with a bit of foresight. I have very fond memories of using them in actual fights, but not so much in ganks, where the whole two minutes to anchor thing sort of makes them totally useless.

AegisSov was supposed to reinvigorate sov-null with a new wave of possibilities due to needing to use your space to keep it, thus a new wave of stuff for content creators to occupy themselves with. However with offensive use of capitals pretty much hamstrung for the foreseeable future, there really isn't a viable answer to defensive projection of carriers, or their essentially risk free use in ratting.

Content creation in null is far more challenging as the defenders have literally every advantage possible. This is part of the reason so many people just fence off a risk-free empire in null, get bored, and go ganking in High Sec where there are plenty of naive and easy big kills. AegisSov should have made people want to cause trouble in null, but the tools aren't really there given all the home field advantages - High Sec is king still, why have to scrape for a few kills when freighters basically grow on trees? You stand to create a healthier null game if there was some degree of risk for both sides.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#5 - 2015-11-08 23:00:52 UTC
-1 because it seems like you have no idea what you want.

The title says that you want to make nul and low sec anoms even safer by making them cyno free areas, and yet you launch into a soap box speech about how nul sec is to safe and it is to hard to create content.

Leave one to wonder what the problem really is.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2015-11-08 23:13:26 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
-1 because it seems like you have no idea what you want.

The title says that you want to make nul and low sec anoms even safer by making them cyno free areas, and yet you launch into a soap box speech about how nul sec is to safe and it is to hard to create content.

Leave one to wonder what the problem really is.


Agreed, WTF is this proposal supposed to do...make anomalies safer or less safe, if the latter...why?

My guess is this, a guy in a ratting carrier might have a cyno fit. So when he does get caught he screams on comms and people form up on a titan and then bridge in to pull his bacon out of the fire. But since he is in an anomaly the cyno wont work, so dead carrier. But Vic can't actually write that because then it would be come patently obvious that he is asking for a buff to his hunting ratting carriers. So he makes a vague and badly written post on the forums instead.

[/Kreskin mode]

So...still no, as I don't think Vic or anybody else should have their play style buffed without a whole heck of a lot more explanation.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#7 - 2015-11-09 00:18:45 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
So...still no, as I don't think Vic or anybody else should have their play style buffed without a whole heck of a lot more explanation.



Explanation is in the original post, but not fully expanded as an idea. Once Phoebe hit, yeah, while it is good you could no longer teleport an army across the map, at the same time it made local capital dominance excessively difficult to challenge, with this especially true the further out in null you get. Wherever you can make money or harvest resources, there should be a credible threat to that, or at least the opportunity for such a threat if players chose to behave as one.

With the Phoebe changes, there isn't really a credible threat, at least not a consistent or reliable one, to local capital dominance, and by extension capital ratting. Risk and reward should be balanced as much as possible. I don't think it is unreasonable, especially given the wormhole changes, to assert that null has become way too safe from any realistic threat to ratting capitals. While yes, people could link loss after loss, or ways they have creatively overcome a defense, these are somewhat exceptions rather than rules.

One of the driving ideas behind AegisSov was that you need to live in your space to keep it, which by extension means you need to defend your space to do such things as ratting and mining. Most of the threats that can get to people consistently are in no way adequate to deal with to deal with the local capital dominance that Phoebe's fatigue and range system created.

Everyone laughs and points (or cheers, or cries!) when freighters die in HS. They let themselves get bumped, they did not use local, they did not use a scout, they did not have a webbing alt, they fell for it, it was their fault. I couldn't agree more with this train of logic. In null, you can break any or all of the 'stay safe' rules and not be punished whist lazily doing anoms simply due to the power of local capital dominance. Null is supposed to be more dangerous than Hisec, yet even if you get caught entirely by surprise, one button press saves you a good deal of the time. There's no threat of a counter-counter escalation as there was before Phoebe basically.

It's not entirely about a buff to a playstyle; It is about dealing with some of the fallout of the Phoebe jump changes which have contributed to an excessively safe null.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2015-11-09 14:22:29 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
So...still no, as I don't think Vic or anybody else should have their play style buffed without a whole heck of a lot more explanation.



Explanation is in the original post, but not fully expanded as an idea. Once Phoebe hit, yeah, while it is good you could no longer teleport an army across the map, at the same time it made local capital dominance excessively difficult to challenge, with this especially true the further out in null you get. Wherever you can make money or harvest resources, there should be a credible threat to that, or at least the opportunity for such a threat if players chose to behave as one.

With the Phoebe changes, there isn't really a credible threat, at least not a consistent or reliable one, to local capital dominance, and by extension capital ratting. Risk and reward should be balanced as much as possible. I don't think it is unreasonable, especially given the wormhole changes, to assert that null has become way too safe from any realistic threat to ratting capitals. While yes, people could link loss after loss, or ways they have creatively overcome a defense, these are somewhat exceptions rather than rules.

One of the driving ideas behind AegisSov was that you need to live in your space to keep it, which by extension means you need to defend your space to do such things as ratting and mining. Most of the threats that can get to people consistently are in no way adequate to deal with to deal with the local capital dominance that Phoebe's fatigue and range system created.

Everyone laughs and points (or cheers, or cries!) when freighters die in HS. They let themselves get bumped, they did not use local, they did not use a scout, they did not have a webbing alt, they fell for it, it was their fault. I couldn't agree more with this train of logic. In null, you can break any or all of the 'stay safe' rules and not be punished whist lazily doing anoms simply due to the power of local capital dominance. Null is supposed to be more dangerous than Hisec, yet even if you get caught entirely by surprise, one button press saves you a good deal of the time. There's no threat of a counter-counter escalation as there was before Phoebe basically.

It's not entirely about a buff to a playstyle; It is about dealing with some of the fallout of the Phoebe jump changes which have contributed to an excessively safe null.

Nice, dodge my question while landing firmly on your soap box of nul is to safe argument.
The title you chose for this is "Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions". And yet in 2 separate posts you have launched into your soap box speech about how nul is to safe.

So here is the question rephrased in hopes that you understand it and answer it.
How does cyno jamming an anom make it a more dangerous place to rat?
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#9 - 2015-11-09 14:40:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Cedric
Donnachadh wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
So...still no, as I don't think Vic or anybody else should have their play style buffed without a whole heck of a lot more explanation.



Explanation is in the original post, but not fully expanded as an idea. Once Phoebe hit, yeah, while it is good you could no longer teleport an army across the map, at the same time it made local capital dominance excessively difficult to challenge, with this especially true the further out in null you get. Wherever you can make money or harvest resources, there should be a credible threat to that, or at least the opportunity for such a threat if players chose to behave as one.

With the Phoebe changes, there isn't really a credible threat, at least not a consistent or reliable one, to local capital dominance, and by extension capital ratting. Risk and reward should be balanced as much as possible. I don't think it is unreasonable, especially given the wormhole changes, to assert that null has become way too safe from any realistic threat to ratting capitals. While yes, people could link loss after loss, or ways they have creatively overcome a defense, these are somewhat exceptions rather than rules.

One of the driving ideas behind AegisSov was that you need to live in your space to keep it, which by extension means you need to defend your space to do such things as ratting and mining. Most of the threats that can get to people consistently are in no way adequate to deal with to deal with the local capital dominance that Phoebe's fatigue and range system created.

Everyone laughs and points (or cheers, or cries!) when freighters die in HS. They let themselves get bumped, they did not use local, they did not use a scout, they did not have a webbing alt, they fell for it, it was their fault. I couldn't agree more with this train of logic. In null, you can break any or all of the 'stay safe' rules and not be punished whist lazily doing anoms simply due to the power of local capital dominance. Null is supposed to be more dangerous than Hisec, yet even if you get caught entirely by surprise, one button press saves you a good deal of the time. There's no threat of a counter-counter escalation as there was before Phoebe basically.

It's not entirely about a buff to a playstyle; It is about dealing with some of the fallout of the Phoebe jump changes which have contributed to an excessively safe null.

Nice, dodge my question while landing firmly on your soap box of nul is to safe argument.
The title you chose for this is "Null Anomalies should be cyno jammed like systems under Incursions". And yet in 2 separate posts you have launched into your soap box speech about how nul is to safe.

So here is the question rephrased in hopes that you understand it and answer it.
How does cyno jamming an anom make it a more dangerous place to rat?


He is saying that if the anoms are cynojammed the ratting carrier can't light a cyno to have his buddies jump in and save him, but he is still left vulnerable to a Blops/Bomber covert-cyno drop.

Whatever he's trying to say, its a lame arguement, for a (in my opinion) lame playstyle. Hot drop ratters that are trying to pass the time and make some isk? I'm sure he'll go off on how it takes so much skill and is so risky to drop blops and kill rat-fit carriers and Battleships. Thats (in my opinion) lame.

If this was real life (I know its not, but go with me on this) that would be like a dude with a rocket launcher hidden in his jacket walking up to a dude at an ATM and blowing him up...for the fun of it...

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work

Cedric

Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#10 - 2015-11-09 14:40:41 UTC
Step 1: Make sov nullsec worth the effort in the first place.
Step 2: Then let's have a look at other aspects sov nullsec.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#11 - 2015-11-09 14:56:38 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
How does cyno jamming an anom make it a more dangerous place to rat?


You can't be serious?

It actually would let smaller groups do something about ratting capitals. As it stands, every carrier within a 5 ly radius of one you tackle can instantly respond; this is much faster than if they had to warp from within system, probably about 25s, or take gates to try and arrive in time. Cyno inhibitors, as stated, are worthless in this context due to anchor time.

The biggest thing defending ratting carriers is the fact that most of them carry a loaded cyno - if you cannot out damage 10-30 other carriers' reps, there's no point in even trying to kill it. I have no issue with players building intel networks and staying safe by them, or working together to build something to minimize risk, but the openings left by a combination of null mechanics plus player efforts are just too small to keep null interesting. You get to defend sov (by proxy PvE) and earn ISK, all while not under any realistic threat.

Dr Cedric wrote:

Whatever he's trying to say, its a lame arguement, for a (in my opinion) lame playstyle. Hot drop ratters that are trying to pass the time and make some isk? I'm sure he'll go off on how it takes so much skill and is so risky to drop blops and kill rat-fit carriers and Battleships. Thats (in my opinion) lame.


Yes and no - PvE is inherently tied to the sov system now. Regardless of how you personally feel about a particular playstyle, it is important that ratting is something that can be interrupted by players. You call it lame, but that's the current game mechanics. We are living in an age when there are strategic ratting fleets. Keeping ratting going is of strategic importance.

Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Step 1: Make sov nullsec worth the effort in the first place.
Step 2: Then let's have a look at other aspects sov nullsec.


By the sheer amount of players Karmafleet has recruited, most of them with promises of easy ISK and SRP programs, I'd say it's already sort of worth it. That many players can't be wrong. Blink




Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-11-09 15:09:23 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Step 1: Make sov nullsec worth the effort in the first place.
Step 2: Then let's have a look at other aspects sov nullsec.


isnt it sov's fault the bpc prices are crumbling to the ground? you guys even have an afk ishtar fit, so do you mean make people work harder for sov or something else? because it looks like sov is very much worth the effort compared to any other space

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-11-09 15:22:30 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#14 - 2015-11-09 15:31:58 UTC
as long as the cyno jammer also stop covert cynos then why not. People already claim null is the safest place in the world why not actually make it that way
xttz
GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2015-11-09 15:34:11 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:

The biggest thing defending ratting carriers is the fact that most of them carry a loaded cyno - if you cannot out damage 10-30 other carriers' reps, there's no point in even trying to kill it. I have no issue with players building intel networks and staying safe by them, or working together to build something to minimize risk, but the openings left by a combination of null mechanics plus player efforts are just too small to keep null interesting. You get to defend sov (by proxy PvE) and earn ISK, all while not under any realistic threat.


It's a good job carriers are being overhauled in the not-so-near future, isn't it? Not only can they no longer fulfill both damage and repping roles at the same time, but it's unlikely they'll remain as effective at anomalies either.

Let's wait and see what effect the capital rebalance has, as your whole point may very well be redundant.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#16 - 2015-11-09 15:40:57 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.



carriers die all the time in dek.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-11-09 15:42:30 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.



carriers die all the time in dek.



Yes, the ones too damned stupid to fit a cyno Smile

The ones that do, mostly recently and hilarious baited the bombers bar boys into smartbomb death Lol
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#18 - 2015-11-09 17:54:30 UTC
xttz wrote:
It's a good job carriers are being overhauled in the not-so-near future, isn't it? Not only can they no longer fulfill both damage and repping roles at the same time, but it's unlikely they'll remain as effective at anomalies either.

Let's wait and see what effect the capital rebalance has, as your whole point may very well be redundant.



A good response, but this amounts to sweeping the problem under the rug for a future re-examination, which could go either way.

If there's anyway to make the future DPS carriers rat, I have no doubts people will find it and use it; as they should if they are being good enterprising players. Since carrier ratting practicality is a question of scale, I also have no doubts that people would also just find the right ratio of carriers ratting to a pool of force auxiliaries ready to go at any time. Yes you may lose a little efficiency as every single carrier won't be ratting, but, once again, this means that the biggest entities will benefit most from this.

In this scenario, we are basically right back to where we are today, with the added addendum that bigger is better, and that bigger entities will able to take advantage of this scaling best, thus per ratter be able to defend sov much more effectively than a smaller entity.


Alternatively, yes, the rebalance could be a silver bullet for this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2015-11-09 18:45:19 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.



carriers die all the time in dek.



Yes, the ones too damned stupid to fit a cyno Smile

The ones that do, mostly recently and hilarious baited the bombers bar boys into smartbomb death Lol


The last 5 chimera who died in Dek all had cyno fit...
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#20 - 2015-11-09 18:51:49 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Dr Cedric wrote:

I think (so its my opinion) that a ratter in an anomaly in sov null sec SHOULD be the safest place in all of eve. If someone wants to disrupt that, they should have to contest sov and not "find content" blaping ratters and miners.

Fun stuff, back to work



You do know how sov works now, right?

Blapping miners and ratters is DIRECTLY contesting sov by bringing indexes down (should you do it enough).


And for anyone not understanding the described proposal: Go tackle a carrier in Dek. I dare ya.



There is a difference between random roaming and trying to find some random dude and dropping him because you and your corp/alliance mates are bored, and actually running a sov-attack campaign focusing on stopping ratting to drop indexes.

I fully expect a group of players that want to take my space (for whatever reason, lame or not) to come in and attack my ships. I get frustrated when its more about random drops than accomplishing something strategic.

So... is blapping miners and ratters directly contesting sov? No, not always. I am all for it when there is a campaign or other strategic plan in place. I am not a fan when its basically internet vandalism for someone else's *****-n-giggles

Cedric

123Next page